Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94157 Case Number: LCR14430 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROSS PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of 41 workers, for payment of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
On the basis of the submissions made by the parties, the Court
does not find grounds to recommend payment of the 3% increase
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.. However, this does not debar the
parties from entering into negotiations with a view to
establishing whether or not some recognition can be afforded to
the Clause on a "quid pro quo" basis. Unless such negotiations
result in a mutual agreement on the issue, the Court can see no
other basis for recommending concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94157 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14430
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ROSS PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of 41 workers, for payment of
the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a voluntary organisation running a sheltered
workshop to aid the rehabilitation of psychiatrically ill
persons. It currently employs 7 workers and 34 trainees. In
December, 1992, the Union submitted a claim for payment of
the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P.. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 20th November, 1993.
As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 8th March, 1994. The Court investigated
the dispute in Killarney on the 27th April, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is prepared to negotiate meaningfully in
return for payment of the 3% increase. The workers
concerned have given excellent co-operation to the
Company and are flexible in relation to the operation of
their duties.
2. The Company, while claiming that monies were not
available to pay the 3% increase, has been involved in
expenditure on other items. The Union maintains that
investment in the labour force is equally as important
as investment in product.
3. The 3% increase, if conceded in return for increased
productivity, would not place a large financial burden
on the Company. The basic wage of the workers concerned
is very low and the P.E.S.P. provided that increases
under the Programme should be paid to such workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a voluntary non-profit making
organisation providing a service to the less fortunate
in the Killarney area. The objective of the Company is
to provide the maximum number of employment
opportunities to these workers. Concession of the 3%
local bargaining increase would threaten this objective.
2. The Company is currently in a loss making situation
(details supplied to the Court) and is projecting
further losses in the next financial year because of an
increase in the price of raw materials and a
discontinuance of one of its products.
3. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. was designed to apply
"exceptionally" and is applicable to companies
performing above the accepted norms. The Company,
despite its precarious financial position, has met its
commitments under the P.E.S.P. and has also paid the
first phase of the Programme for Competitiveness and
Work. It cannot concede the Union's claim for the 3%
local bargaining increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the submissions made by the parties, the Court
does not find grounds to recommend payment of the 3% increase
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.. However, this does not debar the
parties from entering into negotiations with a view to
establishing whether or not some recognition can be afforded to
the Clause on a "quid pro quo" basis. Unless such negotiations
result in a mutual agreement on the issue, the Court can see no
other basis for recommending concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th May, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.