Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94642 Case Number: LCR14645 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the increases due under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) and the 2% under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. In the light of
the current difficulties being experienced by the Company the
Court considers it is inappropriate at this time to pursue a claim
for the implementation of Clause 3 of the PESP.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company implement the
first phase of the PCW with effect from 1st February, 1994.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94642 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14645
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MICROMOTORS GROSCHOPP (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the increases due under Clause 3 of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) and the
2% under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures fractional horsepower motors for
export and employs 120 workers. The Union's claim on behalf
of 95 workers was submitted in March, 1992. Management
rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held
in 1992, 1993 and on the 24th August, 1994. Agreement was
not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
on the 9th November, 1994. The Court investigated the
dispute in Galway on the 14th December, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have made a significant
contribution to the Company by way of increased
efficiency and additional productivity. This has been
on going over a number of years.
2. The plant is extremely busy at present. The employees
concerned are working substantial amounts of overtime.
The Company has installed new equipment and hired
additional workers to meet the demand, yet some workers
(especially piece-workers) have experienced a reduction
in earnings because of the Company's extremely tight
production schedules relating to the timing of
piecework.
3. Many workers in similar industries have received the 3%
increase under PESP. In some instances the increase was
paid on a phased basis. This would be acceptable to the
Union.
4. The Company has been successful in attaining I.S.O. 9002
and this has been achieved largely through the
significant contribution of the workforce.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. With regard to the 3% increase under Clause 3 of PESP,
the relevant Clause states "Exceptionally employers and
trade unions may negotiate further changes in rates of
pay .....". The Company is not 'exceptional' within the
parameters of Clause 3. It has experienced serious
trading difficulties since 1992 resulting in lay-offs
and short time working (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company faces extremely keen competition when
selling its product in the marketplace. The Company's
main customer has demanded a reduction in the price of
both types of motors supplied by Micromotors.
Management has complied with this request in order to
retain the business but it has resulted in a reduction
in profit margins.
3. In view of the present economic climate the Company is
seeking a deferment of Phase 1 of the PCW and the
complete withdrawal of the 3% claim under PESP.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. In the light of
the current difficulties being experienced by the Company the
Court considers it is inappropriate at this time to pursue a claim
for the implementation of Clause 3 of the PESP.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company implement the
first phase of the PCW with effect from 1st February, 1994.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd January, 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.