Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94716 Case Number: LCR14720 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: JAMES MCMAHON LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Rehearing arising out of LCR14342 concerning the application of a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case the Court
is of the view that an improvement in existing pension scheme is a
reasonable response to the Union's claim.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties negotiate and
agree improvements to the existing pension scheme taking into
account Clauses 3 and 4 of P.E.S.P.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94716 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14720
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
JAMES McMAHON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rehearing arising out of LCR14342 concerning the application
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 employs 85 workers of whom 20 are involved
with this claim.
2. On 17th February, 1994 the Court issued LCR14342 which
recommended as follows:
"Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and
the financial position of the business, the Court
does not consider the circumstances under which
payments would arise under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
have been met. Accordingly the Court does not find
grounds to recommend concession of the Union's
claim at this time. However, the Court considers
that the situation should be reviewed in September
1994, having regard to the state of the business at
that time."
3. On 16th November, 1994, the Union wrote to refer the
matter to the Court. The Labour Court investigated the
referral on 3rd March, 1995 (the earliest date suitable
to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have made a major contribution to the
success of the Company by their productivity and
flexibility. This has not altered from the previous
investigation. The Company has offered to deal with
this claim by pension improvements. This approach has
been rejected by the workers, of whom only 7 participate
in the pension scheme.
2. It is the Union's view that the Company widely
exaggerated its financial difficulties at the previous
investigation. In any case, having regard to the
present financial position of the Company, the
difficulties no longer exist. The workers' patience
with the pursuit of the claim and their productivity
concessions to the Company must be recognised by the
payment of the 3% increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not "exceptional" as it is understood
having regard to the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
This is recognised by the 2 other Unions in the Company
which have made no claim. No other Company operating
solely in timber importation and distribution has paid
Clause 3 increases. Some related businesses have made
concessions by making adjustments to their pension
schemes (details supplied).
2. The Company has met all its obligations under both the
P.E.S.P. and P.C.W. Rising material costs and intense
competition in domestic and export markets leave the
Company with no scope to absorb the increased costs
associated with Clause 3. In these circumstances the
Company cannot increase its costs and maintain
competitiveness and jobs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case the Court
is of the view that an improvement in existing pension scheme is a
reasonable response to the Union's claim.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties negotiate and
agree improvements to the existing pension scheme taking into
account Clauses 3 and 4 of P.E.S.P.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.