Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9474 Case Number: LCR14372 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BROOKS HANLEY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for a 3% wage increase as provided for under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
In all the circumstances of this claim the Court has come to the
conclusion that the Company's offer is a fair response to the
claim for 3% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.. The Court is of the
view that acceptance of the Company's proposal is in the long term
interest of the claimants.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union
claim and recommends the claimants accept the Company's offer.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9474 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14372
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BROOKS HANLEY
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a 3% wage increase as provided for under Clause 3
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union submitted a claim on the Company under Clause
3 of the P.E.S.P. early in 1992. The Company claimed that it
did not apply to them as there were no exceptional
circumstances which would justify concession of this extra
increase. It asked that the Union postpone their pursuance
of the claim for that year stating that it would then be
willing to consider some improvement in the areas of
pensions and life assurance.
2. In May, 1993 the Company outlined a proposal for
improvement in the pension, life assurance and income
continuance scheme. Two ballots were held on the proposals.
The workers rejected the proposals The matter was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on 12th January, 1994. Agreement could
not be reached and the issue was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 1st February,
1994. The Court investigated the matter on 7th March, 1994
in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Only a handful of companies in the Sligo area have not
implemented the 3% increase in basic rates either in one
phase or on an agreed phased basis.
2. The numbers employed in the Company has fallen from
approximately 100 to a current figure of 39 and further
productivity cannot be achieved.
3. The Company's activities are related to those of the
construction industry which has given increases under Clause
3 of the P.E.S.P.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Exceptional circumstances do not exist in the Company
which would justify concession of a 3% salary increase.
2. The Company proposed increases in the pension, life
assurance and income continuance scheme which would give much
better conditions than apply in other general builders
provider companies.
3. The Company's proposals have been accepted and
introduced in Brooks Haughton in Cork and Brooks Thomas in
Dublin.
RECOMMENDATION:
In all the circumstances of this claim the Court has come to the
conclusion that the Company's offer is a fair response to the
claim for 3% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.. The Court is of the
view that acceptance of the Company's proposal is in the long term
interest of the claimants.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union
claim and recommends the claimants accept the Company's offer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th March, 1994. Evelyn Owens
P.O'C./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.