Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95214 Case Number: LCR14833 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MANGAN BROS (ENNIS) LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase in basic pay in accordance with the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties,
the Court is satisfied that this Company does not come within the
category of exceptional as defined in Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P..
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim. However, the Court notes that there are many
items on both sides where it is possible that agreement could be
reached in regard to changes in work practices in return for
monetary considerations.
The Court would urge both sides to endeavour to reach agreement
where possible locally on any of these matters.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95214 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14833
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MANGAN BROS (ENNIS) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase in basic pay
in accordance with the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates a cash and carry business with
outlets in Ennis, Galway, Tullamore, Sligo, Letterkenny
and Armagh. The Company's outlets operate on a
stand-alone basis each operating different terms and
conditions of employment.
2. The Company employs 45 workers in Ennis. In March,
1992, the Union submitted a claim for the payment of a
3% increase in accordance with the terms of Clause 3 of
the P.E.S.P. to the workers employed at the Ennis
outlet. The Company rejected the claim and it was
deferred until January 1993 at which stage it was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
3. Two conciliation conferences were held in 1993 at which
the Company claimed inability to pay. In June, 1994,
the Company made an offer of a 0.75% increase in basic
pay in return for the following:-
1. Time off in lieu abolished for shorter working
week (1 hour per week).
2. Rostered lunch breaks.
3. Termination of late night opening on Mondays.
4. Termination of Friday afternoon tea-break.
5. Cashless pay.
6. One man delivery for short runs.
7. Early start (7.30) for two drivers where
required.
4. The Company's proposal was considered at 2 further
conciliation conferences on 17th October and 30th
November, 1994. Some progress was made at conciliation
but the Union was unwilling to consider moving from its
position on the payment of its claim of a 3% increase
plus some retrospection. The Company pleaded inability
to pay the increase sought.
5. No further progress was possible at conciliation. On
30th March, 1995, the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court under the terms of Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
in Limerick on 22nd June, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim was first made in 1992 and at this stage the
workers are expecting a positive resolution in
recognition of their patience in pursuing the claim and
ongoing flexibility. The workers can be defined as low
paid. They are seeking an increase which their
colleagues in other outlets have enjoyed for some time.
2. In other stores, the Company has conceded a 3% increase
in pay for minor concessions. Notwithstanding this, the
Union has shown good faith by negotiating the Company's
proposals (details supplied).
3. Any reasonable assessment of the Union's position would
find that given the high degree of co-operation and
flexibility afforded by the workers as well as the
outcome of negotiation on the Company's proposals that
the Company is getting good value for its 3%. The
Company's outlet in Ennis is its head office. It should
be the leader in terms of pay and conditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in an increasingly competitive
business at minimal margins. The Company's market is
dominated by multiple operators which makes the control
of its costs essential for survival. In Ennis the
Company's turnover is declining.
2. The Company's business is labour intensive with labour
costs representing 70% of total outlay. Any additional
costs will affect the Company's future.
3. It is essential that the cost of any increases be fully
offset by increased flexibility and efficiency. The
Company is not exceptional as understood by the terms of
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.. The Company's economic
circumstances do not allow for concession of a 3%
increase in pay. The payment of any increase must wait
until the savings are being generated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties,
the Court is satisfied that this Company does not come within the
category of exceptional as defined in Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P..
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim. However, the Court notes that there are many
items on both sides where it is possible that agreement could be
reached in regard to changes in work practices in return for
monetary considerations.
The Court would urge both sides to endeavour to reach agreement
where possible locally on any of these matters.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th July, 1995 Finbarrr Flood
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.