Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94406 Case Number: LCR14556 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MCCARRON AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for payment of the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
The Court, having heard the views of the parties expressed in
their oral and written submissions recommends that the Company
increase basic pay by 1% and discuss with the employees a profit
sharing arrangement.
In accordance with the terms of Clause 3 of the PESP the parties
should discuss the implications of the increases for
competitiveness, the need for flexibility and the contribution
made by the employees to such change.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94406 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14556
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MCCARRON AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for payment of the 3% local bargaining
increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 135 workers at its pig
processing plant in Cavan. It accounts for 7% of the
national pig kill and exports 35% of its produce. The
Union's claim was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in
June, 1993. In LCR14169 which was issued in August, 1993 the
Court recommended as follows:-
"The Court recommends, having examined the Company's
accounts and taken account of the views of the parties
as expressed in their oral and written submissions, that
the Union defer pursuit of the claim at this time. The
Court further recommends that the parties review the
situation in April, 1994."
Subsequently following a meeting of the parties in May, 1994
the Company offered the workers concerned a profit sharing
arrangement in lieu of any increase in basic pay. Details
are as follows:-
#20,000 to be paid to staff if trading figures reach a
minimum of #150,000.
#40,000 to be paid to staff if trading figures reach a
minimum of #300,000.
#60,000 to be paid to staff if trading figures reach a
minimum of #600,000.
The Union claimed that it would only consider the profit
sharing arrangement in conjunction with a 1% increase in
basic pay. Further agreement was not possible and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on the 2nd August, 1994. As
no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 5th August, 1994. The Court investigated
the dispute on the 29th August, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has experienced difficulty reconciling the
Company's position on profitability in recent years. At
the meeting in May, 1994 the Company claimed to be in a
break-even situation when in fact profits averaged
#180,000 over four years. This indicates that the
Company is financially secure.
2. The workers have given excellent co-operation over the
years. The Union is prepared to accept 1% of the 3%
increase due on basic pay. This must be conceded if the
Company seriously wishes the Union to consider the
profit sharing plan.
3. In recent times many similar employments have paid their
workers the 3% increase. (Details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a small producer and its fundamental
trading difficulty arises from trying to compete with
much larger European and Irish processors. Prices have
fluctuated and an improvement is not expected until
early 1995. At the same time the Company must invest #1
million in new machinery and technology.
2. The Company is not 'exceptional' within the parameters
of Clause 3 of PESP. It cannot afford to pay the 3%
increase due because of its financial position (Details
supplied to the Court).
3. The Company's proposal for a profit sharing scheme is
reasonable. The contribution, co-operation and
flexibility of the workforce have a direct bearing on
Company profits.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having heard the views of the parties expressed in
their oral and written submissions recommends that the Company
increase basic pay by 1% and discuss with the employees a profit
sharing arrangement.
In accordance with the terms of Clause 3 of the PESP the parties
should discuss the implications of the increases for
competitiveness, the need for flexibility and the contribution
made by the employees to such change.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th September, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.