Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93504 Case Number: LCR14380 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RANGELAND MEATS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
In the circumstances outlined by the Company, the Court considers
it would be inadvisable to recommend concession of the Union's
claim at this time.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties meet in early
June, 1994 to review the situation in the context of the Company
returns for 1993/94 and the forecast for 1994/95.
It is open to the parties to refer back to the Court at that stage
should they fail to resolve the matter locally.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93504 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14380
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
RANGELAND MEATS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% increase under
the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was set up in 1982 and it employs 110
workers. It is a meat-processing Company with 2 distinct
activities: beef-burger production and de-boning beef. The
Company exports 90% of its deboned beef and its burger
production is primarily for the Irish fast food market.
2. The Company paid Phase 3 of the P.E.S.P. on 1st May
1993. Negotiations on Clause 3 had begun in 1992, shortly
after the payment of Phase 2 of the P.E.S.P. The Company
responded to the Union's claim by indicating a willingness to
negotiate on a totally self-financing basis. The proposals
put forward at that time related to boning but the parties
were unable to agree a change in the bonus system. The
Company did not put forward any proposals for the burger
plant due to trading difficulties.
3. The parties could not agree in local negotiations and
the claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 25th February and 24th
June 1993. The Company maintained its position that any
increase could only be allowed on a totally self-financing
basis. There was no basis for agreement at conciliation.
The claim was referred to the Labour Court, under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, on 30th August
1993. A Labour Court investigation took place on 1st March
1994 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. places an obligation on
employers to facilitate an increase in pay of up to 3%
subject to local bargaining. The Company has not made a
reasonable offer in these circumstances. Its only argument
has been that it has increased its rates above the P.E.S.P.
increases. In fact, the increases referred to were
specifically agreed to address a low-wage regime and internal
matters.
2. The workers are entitled to be paid the 3% increase as
they have operated efficiently and with maximum flexibility.
Notwithstanding this effort, the Union is prepared to
negotiate. Clause 3 only refers to a reasonable quid pro quo
which the workers are prepared to give. No other employer in
the locality, with the exception of the Company, has refused
to enter into meaningful negotiations under the terms of
Clause 3.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is an excellent employer and it has paid
comparable rates to its competitors. Within the period of
the P.E.S.P., the Company has increased wages to certain
categories of worker over and above the P.E.S.P. increases.
2. The Company's competitive position has seriously
deteriorated due to market factors during the past 2 years
and any pay increases over and above those already paid would
have serious implications for the viability of the Company
(details supplied). The Company can see no justification for
the claim in the context of the P.E.S.P. which states that
negotiations on Clause 3 must take full account of the
competitive position of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the circumstances outlined by the Company, the Court considers
it would be inadvisable to recommend concession of the Union's
claim at this time.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties meet in early
June, 1994 to review the situation in the context of the Company
returns for 1993/94 and the forecast for 1994/95.
It is open to the parties to refer back to the Court at that stage
should they fail to resolve the matter locally.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
24th March, 1994. ______________________
J.F./A.L. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.