Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95353 Case Number: LCR15007 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FRANCODALE LIMITED T/A MIDLETON DOOR DESIGNS (Represented by T/A MIDLETON DOOR DESIGNS) - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Non-payment of the P.C.W. and the adult rate of one worker.
Recommendation:
1996
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95353 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15007
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
FRANCODALE LIMITED T/A MIDLETON DOOR DESIGNS
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Non-payment of the P.C.W. and the adult rate of one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced trading in May, 1992. It employs six
workers. In December, 1993 and January, 1994, short-time
working was introduced. In May, 1994, the Union submitted a
claim for payment of the first phase of the P.C.W. with
effect from 1st January, 1994. Management rejected the
claim. Following unsuccessful discussions at local level the
Union sought to refer the dispute to the Labour Relations
Commission but the Company was unwilling to attend a
conciliation conference. In June, 1995 the Union referred
the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute
in Cork on the 17th August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have co-operated fully with the
Company since it commenced trading. Their pay rates are
very modest. They are entitled to the increases due
under the terms of the P.C.W.
2. If the Company has financial difficulties at the present
time, the Union is prepared to discuss the phasing in of
the increases. This would not place a significant
financial burden on the Company as the increase due is
relatively small.
3. Despite repeated Union requests the Company is not
paying the correct adult rate to one worker. If the
Company has problems with the worker relating to
attendance it should be resolved through the
disciplinary procedure rather than by withholding wages.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The present owner of the Company has injected
substantial amounts of money into the enterprise in
order to try and make the Company viable and secure the
employment. He is also presently discharging debts to
the Revenue Commissioners
2. The Company cannot pay the increase under the P.C.W.
because of its present financial situation. If the
Company becomes profitable management may be in a
position to discuss the increase due with the Union.
3. The Company's present pay rates are reasonable and
compare well with similar employments.
4. The Company has not yet paid the full adult rate to one
worker because his attendance record (especially on
Mondays) is very erratic. When this improves the
Company is prepared to pay the full rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. It is the view of the
Court that there is a reasonable expectation by employees that
they will achieve increases in pay in line with the terms of the
PCW.
The Court has fully considered the financial constraints
experienced by the Company.
Bearing these in mind and with a view to resolving the dispute the
Court recommends that the 1st Phase of the PCW be paid with effect
from a current date with the 2nd Phase being paid on 1st April,
1996.
The parties to discuss the issue of retrospection at the end of
1996.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.