Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93662 Case Number: LCR14421 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: COW AND GATE NUTRICIA (WEXFORD) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F.;TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
The Court, given all the circumstances of this case, considers
concession of this claim at this time would be inappropiate.
The Court recommends the claim be reviewed in 1995.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93662 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14421
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
COW AND GATE NUTRICIA (WEXFORD) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (M.S.F.)
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Dispute concerning a claim for 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, a subsidiary of Nutricia in Holland
manufactures baby food and employs 157 workers in its Wexford
plant.
2. In August 1991, the Labour Court issued LCR13350
concerning the restructuring of wage scales in the Company.
In implementing this recommendation, the Company imposed a
number of conditions one of which was that there would be no
special increase of 3% under the P.E.S.P. The Court was
consulted and its clarification stated that claims under
Clause 3 remain to be dealt with within the terms set out in
the Programme of which it is part.
3. On 25th March 1993, the Labour Court issued LCR14011
concerning a claim for the implementation of Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. The Court's Recommendation stated as follows:
"The Court having considered the submissions of the
parties and given all the circumstances of this case
recommends the parties consider the provisions of Clause
3 of the P.E.S.P. with a view to seeking an acceptable
arrangement on the expiry of the P.E.S.P."
4. The Union wrote to the Labour Court on 25th November,
1993 seeking an investigation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 25th February, 1994 (the earliest date suitable
to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the payment of the 3% increase
allowable under the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The
Union's claim is in accordance with the terms of LCR14011
which it accepts. The Company is very profitable and like
comparable companies throughout the dairy industry it should
have come to an mutually acceptable arrangement concerning
the payment of the 3% increase.
2. The Union has indicated on many occasions that it is
prepared to negotiate on some form of productivity in return
for the increase. There are many areas in which the Union is
prepared to negotiate or where it has already given
productivity benefits to the Company (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. was agreed by the Social
Partners to allow for special pay increases, in instances of
exceptional performance, on a quid pro quo basis. As
recently as 1990, such bargaining took place in the Company
which lead to substantial improvements in pay (details
supplied).
2. The Company is operating in an industry where there is
substantial over capacity and where subcontracting has become
the norm. These "threats" in the industry place ongoing
pressures on internal costs and future viability. In these
circumstances, the Company regards the payment of a further
3% pay increase as unjustifiable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, given all the circumstances of this case, considers
concession of this claim at this time would be inappropiate.
The Court recommends the claim be reviewed in 1995.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th April, 1994. Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.