Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9430 Case Number: LCR14381 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CAVAN IRISH CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for increases in pay in accordance with the terms of Phase 3 and also a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
On the basis of the information received, the Court is satisfied
that concession of the Union's claim would be unrealistic at this
stage.
The Court accordingly recommends that both parties meet at the end
of June 1994 to review the prospects of meeting the Union's claim
for the last Phase of the P.E.S.P. in the light of the then
trading position of the Company.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9430 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14381
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CAVAN IRISH CRYSTAL LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for increases in pay in accordance
with the terms of Phase 3 and also 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 dispute concerns 63 workers employed by the Company
as glass cutters, blowers, acid room operators, clerical and
maintenance personnel. The Company produces hand-blown
crystal and has been in operation for 25 years. In 1983, the
Company went into receivership and the present shareholders
bought the Company.
2. The third phase of the P.E.S.P. fell due on 1st January,
1993 and local discussions were deferred until mid-1993 to
allow for an improvement in business. This did not
materialise and the Union is seeking the implementation of
the third phase together with a 3% increase under the terms
of Clause 3 which the parties had discussed in 1992, when
negotiating the second phase of the P.E.S.P. The Company
rejected the claim on grounds of inability to pay.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference took place on 9th
November, 1993. No progress could be made as the Company
pleaded inability to pay. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 14th January, 1994. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Cavan on 2nd March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union had similar difficulties with the Company in
1992 with regard to the 2nd phase of the P.E.S.P.. This was
eventually paid in full before Christmas 1992. Over the past
10 years, the Company has always pleaded special
circumstances when it came to paying wage increases. A new
wage round will commence on 1st January, 1994 which will
worsen the situation.
2. The workers have shown considerable flexibility when
required by the Company to change their working schedules.
They have reduced costs by re-design (details supplied)
thereby increasing value and reducing labour costs.
3. Many of the workers have been with the Company for 24
years and they have neither job security nor a pension
scheme. The workers have been very patient in following up
these claims and the Company has benefited from a 12-months
pay pause. The workers expect the Company to respond
positively to the claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is unable to meet the Union's demands
without irrevocably and immediately damaging its chances of
survival in an extremely depressed and competitive market
(details supplied). The Company's financial position is such
that it has no access to any source of funds which would
allow it to respond to the pay increases sought by the Union.
Any increase in costs will jeopardise the Company's fragile
trading position and destroy its ability to trade out of its
difficulties.
2. The Company supports 40 highly paid manual jobs and
would be considered one of the wage leaders in the area. The
product is hand-made and, therefore, there is no chance of
looking to increased mechanisation in order to reduce costs.
In order to survive, the Company must be able to control its
labour cost while increasing its sales (details supplied).
3. On a more positive front, the Company has been able to
reduce some of its costs. However the market is depressed
and highly competitive. Most of the Company's competitors
have reorganised their operations and have cut their labour
costs. The Company is in poor financial shape and its only
option is to trade out of its difficulties. To be successful
the Company needs the deferral of Phase 3 of the P.E.S.P.
until 1995 and an exemption from the terms of Clause 3.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the information received, the Court is satisfied
that concession of the Union's claim would be unrealistic at this
stage.
The Court accordingly recommends that both parties meet at the end
of June 1994 to review the prospects of meeting the Union's claim
for the last Phase of the P.E.S.P. in the light of the then
trading position of the Company.
~
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.