Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93637 Case Number: LCR14747 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BRC MCMAHON REINFORCEMENTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
5. In view of the statement by the Company to the Court that the
washing up and canteen facilities were currently being improved,
the Court recommends that the package as proposed by the Company
be accepted, with an implementation date of 1st January, 1995.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93637 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14747
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BRC MCMAHON REINFORCEMENTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for a 3% increase under the terms
of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1971 and it employs 25
workers in the production and manufacture of steelmesh for
the construction industry.
2. In October, 1992, the Union presented its claim for a 3%
increase in pay under the terms of Clause 3 of the PESP. The
claim was rejected by the Company and it was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on 21st July, 1993 but it was not possible to make
progress on the claim.
3. In 1994, the Company's financial position improved and a
further conciliation conference was held on 11th May, 1994.
The Company was willing to concede a 3% increase in pay, on a
phased basis from the date of agreement, in return for the
following concessions.
(i) The elimination of wash-up time (ten minutes per
day).
(ii) The elimination of Mass time on holydays
(iii) The elimination of afternoon tea-breaks Mon/Tues.
(iv) Ongoing co-operation with flexibility and change.
4. Following conciliation conferences on 11th May and 26th
June, 1994, the Union's final position was to consider
the elimination of the tea-breaks and Mass time on
holy-days. It was also willing to consider the
reduction of the wash-up time from 5 to 3 minutes. The
Union also sought full retrospective payments to 1st
January, 1993.
5. A negotiated settlement was not possible. On 9th
August, 1994, the claim was referred to the Labour
Court under the terms of Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated
the dispute on 13th April, 1995, the earliest date
suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have contributed in a very significant way
to the modernisation of and improved efficiency in the
Company. The workers' efforts in the area of
flexibility and change justify concession by the
Company of a 3% increase in basic pay.
2. The Company has sought the elimination of the Mass
leave arrangements for holydays. This is a long
standing benefit to the workers, the withdrawal of
which would cause great inconvenience. The Company is
also seeking the withdrawal of afternoon tea-breaks for
Monday and Tuesday which are the longest working days.
For these days it is essential that the workers have
built-in breaks for refreshment to ensure a safe
working environment. The workers also require their
lunchtime wash-up time as the nature of the work
requires the workers to 'scrub-off' before food. This
is time-consuming and involves queuing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not performing exceptionally as
envisaged under the terms of Clause 3 of the PESP. The
Company's trading and financial position (details
supplied) will not permit it to grant a 3% increase in
pay without the implementation of the package of
concessions proposed to the Union.
2. As provided for under the terms of Clause 3, the Union
must take full account of the implications for
competitiveness, the need for flexibility and change
and the contribution made by the workers to such
change. The Company's proposals represent a reasonable
trade-off between the Union's claim for a 3% increase
in basic pay and the Company's requirement that any
concession would be self-financing as far as possible.
The proposals represent a claw-back of approximately 2%
of basic pay. The Company is presently improving its
canteen and wash-up facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In view of the statement by the Company to the Court that the
washing up and canteen facilities were currently being improved,
the Court recommends that the package as proposed by the Company
be accepted, with an implementation date of 1st January, 1995.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./U.S. ------------
Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Jerome Frode, Court Secretary.