Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94695 Case Number: LCR14694 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS;BORD NA MONA GROUP |
Claim by Unions for the implementation of the 3% local bargaining increase provided for under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
It is acknowledged by the Company that the employees have made a
major contribution to the significant changes that have taken
place in the Company over the years.
While its financial performance has improved, the overall
financial state of the Company and its security in the future, is
still a major source of concern.
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case and
particularly the Company requirement for competitiveness, the
Court does not recommend payment of the 3%, at this time.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94695 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BORD NA MONA
AND
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS
BORD NA MONA GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by Unions for the implementation of the 3% local
bargaining increase provided for under the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions submitted a claim to the Company for
implementation of the 3% increase provided for under Clause 3
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
The claim was submitted in June, 1992 on behalf of 1,800
permanent and 600 seasonal Bord Na Mona employees. There
were a number of meetings between Unions and Management in
relation to the claim but no progress was made.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 21st September,
1994. No progress was possible and the dispute was referred
by the Labour Relations Commission in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 to the Labour
Court on 24th November, 1994. The Court investigated the
dispute on 23rd January, 1995 (the earliest date suitable to
the parties).
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have made a significant
contribution to the Company by way of increased
efficiency and additional productivity. Their
co-operation is ongoing for the past number of years.
Workers have co-operated with management in implementing
new cost reduction programmes throughout the Company's
operations. The new programmes entailed significant job
losses and also resulted in the replacement of
traditional work systems. The new systems involved
autonomous enterprise working and payment by result
schemes.
2. The importance of the contributions made by the workers
in achieving improvements in productivity and efficiency
and cost reduction was acknowledged by the Chairman of
the Company. The Unions cannot understand why the
Company will not sanction the 3% pay increase, which is
a legitimate and reasonable pay claim. Many workers in
other Semi-state Companies have received the 3% increase
under P.E.S.P..
3. The Company is no longer a loss making enterprise. As a
result of the changes implemented over the years the
Company is now a profit making business. In the year
ending March, 1994 the Company had a nett profit of #5.8
million and the forecast for 1995 is a nett profit of
over #6 million. The Union does not accept the
Company's plea of inability to pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 3% increase provided for under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.,
is relevant only if:-
"Exceptionally employers and trade unions may
negotiate further changes in the rates of pay...."
The Company is not "exceptional" within the parameters
of Clause 3. The Company has experienced serious
trading difficulties over the years resulting in
lay-offs and short time working.
2. The Company is facing extremely keen competition in
selling its products in the market place. Because of
the intensely competitive nature of the Company's
business it is not possible to pass on any price
increase to customers. The proposed 3% increase would
cost the Company about #1.4m per annum. The additional
cost could only be funded by shedding more jobs.
Further borrowing is not an option open to the Company
because of the present high level of debt and the urgent
need to reduce it.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is acknowledged by the Company that the employees have made a
major contribution to the significant changes that have taken
place in the Company over the years.
While its financial performance has improved, the overall
financial state of the Company and its security in the future, is
still a major source of concern.
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case and
particularly the Company requirement for competitiveness, the
Court does not recommend payment of the 3%, at this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd March, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.