Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95177 Case Number: LCR15018 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BLARNEY WOOLLEN MILLS (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Hearing arising from LCR14626.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the further submissions from the parties and
the additional information supplied subsequent to the hearing the
Court recommends that:-
(a) The Company amend its offer by inserting 15 days for 20.
(b) The amended proposal be accepted by the Union.
(c) The proposals be implemented in 1996 and the Company pay
each of the claimants a sum of £150 as a lead in
payment.
(c) The 3% under P.E.S.P. be paid from 1/1/96.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95177 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15018
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BLARNEY WOOLLEN MILLS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Hearing arising from LCR14626.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Labour Court issued LCR14626 in December, 1994. It
recommended as follows:-
"Clause 3 P.E.S.P.
The Court is of the view that no real negotiations have
taken place. Accordingly the Court recommends that the
parties meet to examine means of implementing the 3%
under the Clause on a cost neutral or effective basis.
the Court would see this examination concluding by the
end of January, 1995 and if not resolved the dispute
may be referred back to the Court for final
recommendation"
2. Local level discussion took place in January, 1995
following which the Company put forward the following
proposals:-
(a) Union members would, in accordance with the
company's operatonal requirements, agree to
work an 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. roster on not less
than 20 days in each year.
(b) Overtime payment would continue to apply to
any excess hours worked outside the 9 a.m. to
5.30 p.m. period in any period when the 20
days had been scheduled and worked by
agreement.
(c) An adjustment of 3% would be applied to the
existing pay scale from the commencement of
the pay week following confirmation of
acceptance of the Company's proposal.
3. The Company's proposals were rejected by the workers.
4. The dispute was referred back to the Labour Court on
3rd March, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
in Cork on 22nd November, 1995, the first available
date suitable to both parties. Following the Court
hearing the parties submitted further information to
the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim was lodged in 1992. The Company has not been
sincere in its efforts to reach agreement. It refused
to consider the Union's proposals put forward in
January, 1995.
2. The workers concerned are paid considerably less than
other workers in similar employment both locally and
nationally. The Company's proposals would result in a
substantial loss of overtime earnings to the workers.
3. The Company has already achieved the necessary
co-operation and savings to justify payment of this
claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has fully complied with the specific
criteria put forward by the Court and which is
consistent with the principle of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P..
2. The Union did not put forward any suggestions for
consideration that would meet the criteria - cost
neutral or effective basis.
3. The Company's proposal is designed to enable the
workers concerned to integrate into the work patterns
of the Company in a situation where they would receive
an increase of 3%. It does not see any other basis
that can be put forward to the Union for a satisfactory
resolution to this matter.
4. The application of the work roster system referred to
in the Company's proposal can only commence in the high
season. There is no basis on which retrospection can
be applied. Cost neutral basis could only operate from
the high season in 1996.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the further submissions from the parties and
the additional information supplied subsequent to the hearing the
Court recommends that:-
(a) The Company amend its offer by inserting 15 days for 20.
(b) The amended proposal be accepted by the Union.
(c) The proposals be implemented in 1996 and the Company pay
each of the claimants a sum of £150 as a lead in
payment.
(c) The 3% under P.E.S.P. be paid from 1/1/96.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
15th December, 1995 -------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR FRAN BRENNAN, COURT SECRETARY.