Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9510 Case Number: LCR14692 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SEMPERIT IRELAND LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions, on behalf of approximately 70 craftsmen, for payment of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the arguments made by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. It is the view of the
Court that the parties should seek to implement the terms of
Clause 3 of the PESP on a phased basis over 3 years.
The parties in endeavouring to reach agreement should take full
account of the provisions of the Clause and the need to maintain
competitiveness and to secure employment.
The discussions should be completed on or before 30th June, 1995.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9510 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14692
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SEMPERIT IRELAND LIMITED
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions, on behalf of approximately 70 craftsmen,
for payment of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures high quality tyres mostly for export
and employs 720 workers at its plant in Dublin. It is part
of the Continental AG Group which has manufacturing
facilities in Europe and the USA. The Unions' claim was
first submitted in 1992. The Company rejected the claim on
the grounds of poor plant performance and the prevailing
market conditions. The claim was the subject of numerous
discussions at local level but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 24th November, 1994.
As agreement was not possible the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 5th
January, 1995. The Court investigated the dispute on the
22nd February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions have complied with all the terms of the PESP.
The workers concerned have given substantial
co-operation and increased productivity to the Company.
They have also agreed to a reduction in manning levels.
2. The Unions are prepared to accept the Company's
efficiency/productivity proposals as outlined in the
Company document of 20th May, 1994 (details supplied to
the Court) in return for the 3% increase.
3. A substantial number of companies both in the public
and private sectors have paid the 3% increase to their
workers. The Company originally offered to pay the 3%
increase in 1992 but then withdrew the offer. The
Company is more profitable at the present time and is in
a better position to concede the 3% increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The tyre market has experienced the severest recession
for many years. Market volumes have dropped by 20% with
a consequential reduction in prices. The Company was
forced to lay-off its workforce for 50 production days
in 1993. Although market volumes recovered in 1994
prices have not recovered sufficiently and the outlook
for 1995 is uncertain.
2. The Company is experiencing severe competition from both
inside and outside the Group in Europe and also from
Eastern Countries. The Company's costs are
significantly greater than many competitors. Management
cannot afford to concede the 3% increase as increased
costs could seriously damage the Company's competitive
position and adversely affect its future business and
workers' employment prospects.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the arguments made by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. It is the view of the
Court that the parties should seek to implement the terms of
Clause 3 of the PESP on a phased basis over 3 years.
The parties in endeavouring to reach agreement should take full
account of the provisions of the Clause and the need to maintain
competitiveness and to secure employment.
The discussions should be completed on or before 30th June, 1995.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th March, 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.