Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93644 Case Number: LCR14367 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LIMERICK GREYHOUND RACING TRACK LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for an increase in pay.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the Company had, in a meaningful way, entered
negotiations with the Union on its the claim, but because of their
financial constraints, sought to address the claim on a cost-
neutral basis.
The Court recognises that the Union, being aware of the financial
circumstances of the Company, was prepared to seek a basis which
would allow the members' claim to be addressed in a manner which
would not have an adverse impact on the finances of the Company.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that the parties should
have further discussions, with a view to elaborating on the
package of measures arising from the conciliation conference of
the 19th February, 1993, which will allow the parties to agree an
acceptable basis for addressing the claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93644 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14367
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LIMERICK GREYHOUND RACING TRACK LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1990, the Union lodged a claim for an increase
in pay, on behalf of three groundsmen employed at the Limerick
Greyhound Track. The Union is seeking the application of Local
Authority rates for the workers concerned (one of whom was due to
retire in November, 1993). The Union was agreeable to the
reduction of manning levels from 3 to 2, through the non-
replacement of the retired worker, with any shortage of manning to
be covered by the occasional recruitment of part-time personnel.
Local discussions took place and conciliation conferences
concerning the claim were held on the 21st February, 1991 and on
the 19th February, 1993. A set of proposals emerged which was
accepted by the Union but was unacceptable to the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th November,
1993, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute, in Limerick, on
the 9th of February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Current rates of pay are out of line with the rates
being paid for similar work elsewhere. The rates should be
raised to the level of rates paid to Plant Operators (B) with
the Local Authorities, which is a comparable employment.
2. The Union's willingness to have the groundstaff reduced
by 1 demonstrates its intention to be flexible and co-operate
with the Company.
3. The revised rates of pay should be applied
retrospectively, in view of the considerable patience shown
by the Union concerning the claim.
4. The Company is essentially a state-sponsored body and
should pay the going rate for the job, a situation that
applies in the public sector. The appropriate rates are in
operation for clerical, supervisory and managerial grades.
5. The question of the claim being excluded under the
P.E.S.P. does not arise. If it did arise, the claim would
have been disallowed after the first meeting with the
Company.
6. The Irish Productivity Centre concluded that a decrease
in manning from 3 to 2 was feasible.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rates of pay which apply to the haredriver and
groundsmen at Limerick Greyhound Track were recommended by
the Labour Court in LCR10636 (1986). These rates have
attracted all increases due under national wage agreements
since that time.
2. Concession of any increase in Limerick Greyhound Track
would have serious repercussive implications for other
subsidiary companies, particularly the Dublin tracks which
were also subject to LCR10636.
3. The financial situation of the Company precludes payment
of any increase above the basic terms of the P.E.S.P. In
1990 when this claim was made, Bord na Con had an annual
group trading deficit of #319,038. Since then the financial
performance of the organisation has significantly
deteriorated with 1993 losses estimated at #785,734 and total
trading losses of almost #2m over the last 6 years.
4. Any increases in rates of pay have to be approved by the
Department of Finance. In the context of continuing
difficulties in the public sector pay area, it is most
unlikely that sanction for an increase for these employees
would be forthcoming. Additional costs would not be viewed
favourably by the parent Department, the Department of
Agriculture and Food.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the Company had, in a meaningful way, entered
negotiations with the Union on its the claim, but because of their
financial constraints, sought to address the claim on a cost-
neutral basis.
The Court recognises that the Union, being aware of the financial
circumstances of the Company, was prepared to seek a basis which
would allow the members' claim to be addressed in a manner which
would not have an adverse impact on the finances of the Company.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that the parties should
have further discussions, with a view to elaborating on the
package of measures arising from the conciliation conference of
the 19th February, 1993, which will allow the parties to agree an
acceptable basis for addressing the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
21st March, 1994 _______________
M.K./M.M. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.