Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94664 Case Number: LCR14661 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GAVIN BROTHERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the increases due under Phase 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) and the 1st Phase of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
Recommendation:
Given the provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work it is
reasonable for employees to expect that they will at least benefit
from the basic pay terms of these programmes.
In this case the Court in their consideration of the oral and
written submissions has taken into account the financial
constraints on the Company.
The Court recommends that the Company implement Phase 3 of the
PESP with effect from 1st February, 1995 and that they review the
situation with regard to the payment of the PCW after 1st
September, 1995.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94664 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14661
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
GAVIN BROTHERS 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 Phase 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) and the 1st
Phase of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the bakery business and located at
Castlebar, Co. Mayo. On the 21st January, 1994 the Union (on
behalf of 11 workers) submitted a claim for the increases
under Phase 3 of the PESP and the 2% increase due under the
PCW. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 11th August, 1994.
As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 9th November, 1994. The Court
investigated the dispute in Castlebar on the 13th December,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are entitled to the increases due
under the PESP and the PCW. They are in receipt of very
moderate rates of pay. The increases under the PESP and
PCW were intended to cater for such workers.
2. The workers concerned have given significant
co-operation to the Company by way of productivity and
efficiencies. The volume of production within the
Company has not decreased.
3. Despite repeated requests the Union has received no
financial information from the Company to sustain its
argument that the Company is experiencing financial
difficulties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has experienced significant trading
difficulties over the past number of years and has
sustained on-going losses (details supplied to the
Court).
2. The Company negotiated a contract with the Irish Pride
Group which, while increasing turnover, means lower
profit margins.
3. The Company has negotiated a financial package with its
bankers. As part of the proposals it was agreed that
seven workers and three directors would take a reduction
in wages. This is an integral part of the Company's
survival plan.
4. The Company, because of its financial position, is not
able to pay the terms of either the PESP or the PCW.
Management's main priority is to restore the wages of
the workers who accepted the reduction in wages.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work it is
reasonable for employees to expect that they will at least benefit
from the basic pay terms of these programmes.
In this case the Court in their consideration of the oral and
written submissions has taken into account the financial
constraints on the Company.
The Court recommends that the Company implement Phase 3 of the
PESP with effect from 1st February, 1995 and that they review the
situation with regard to the payment of the PCW after 1st
September, 1995.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th 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.