Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94655 Case Number: LCR14755 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TULLAMORE CASINGS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the application of Phase 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.C.W.).
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the Company did not implement Phase 3 of the
PESP agreement in accordance with the terms agreed with the Union.
The intended introduction of a bonus scheme by the Company in lieu
of Phase 3 of PESP was not advised to, nor agreed with the Union,
nor the subject of any written agreement with the workforce. It
has, and does, however, yield greater payments to all the
workforce than Phase 3 PESP would have done.
Given the unsatisfactory method of introducing the bonus scheme in
lieu of Phase 3 PESP, while taking into account the greater
payments received by the workforce todate as a result, the Court
recommends as follows:-
1. That any adjustments that would have arisen if the basic
salary had been increased by #5.75 per week from the due date
in April 1993, as regards to overtime, shift premiums, and
pension credits, should be paid retrospective to that date.
2. That the 3rd Phase of PESP be implemented retrospective to
the 1st April, 1995.
3. That the parties meet as soon as possible with the objective
of reviewing the current bonus/scheme consequent to the
application of the above increase to the current basic rate.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94655 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14755
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TULLAMORE CASINGS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the application of Phase 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.C.W.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of natural sausage
casings. It operates at 25 locations and employs 110
workers.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for a
pay increase under the terms of the 3rd phase of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The
workers concerned are employed at the Company's plant in
Roscrea.
The Company's position is that an agreement was reached in
April, 1992 for a piece-rate system to be introduced in all
of Tullamore Casings locations. The system is based on the
basic wage rate in operation at that time and is paid in lieu
of the final phase of P.E.S.P.. The Union claims that such
an agreement does not exist.
Local level discussions took place but no agreement was
reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 25th
August, 1994. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour court on 9th November, 1994 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place in Nenagh on 11th April,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union entered into an agreement with management for
the application of P.E.S.P. as follows:-
1st phase : 4% of basic pay from April, 1991.
2nd phase : 3% of basic pay from April, 1992.
3rd phase : 3.75% of basic pay from April, 1993.
The Company failed to apply the final phase as agreed
with the Union.
2. The Company's claim that it reached an agreement to
introduce a bonus scheme in lieu of the final phase of
the P.E.S.P. is not the case. No such agreement exists.
3. It is the Union's understanding that the bonus scheme
was introduced on the basis of additional work carried
out by the workers as a result of management's decision
not to replace a number of workers who had left the
Company. The scheme was introduced a considerable
time before the due date of the application of the 3rd
phase of P.E.S.P..
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of the piece-rate system was agreed,
albeit, verbally at all locations in April, 1992 in lieu
of the third phase of the P.E.S.P. in response to and
having regard to market conditions.
2. The employees have benefited considerably from the
agreed introduction of the piece-rate system in Roscrea
(as indeed they have elsewhere) by comparison to what
they would have earned under the 3rd phase of the
P.E.S.P..
3. It would appear that only 1 employee out of a total of
approximately 110 employees has a problem with the
agreement as none of the other locations have indicated
any difficulty with the agreement.
4. The Court is requested to reject the claim and to uphold
that an agreement was reached which provided for the
introduction of a piece rate system in Tullamore Casings
in lieu of the 3rd phase of the P.E.S.P..
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the Company did not implement Phase 3 of the
PESP agreement in accordance with the terms agreed with the Union.
The intended introduction of a bonus scheme by the Company in lieu
of Phase 3 of PESP was not advised to, nor agreed with the Union,
nor the subject of any written agreement with the workforce. It
has, and does, however, yield greater payments to all the
workforce than Phase 3 PESP would have done.
Given the unsatisfactory method of introducing the bonus scheme in
lieu of Phase 3 PESP, while taking into account the greater
payments received by the workforce todate as a result, the Court
recommends as follows:-
1. That any adjustments that would have arisen if the basic
salary had been increased by #5.75 per week from the due date
in April 1993, as regards to overtime, shift premiums, and
pension credits, should be paid retrospective to that date.
2. That the 3rd Phase of PESP be implemented retrospective to
the 1st April, 1995.
3. That the parties meet as soon as possible with the objective
of reviewing the current bonus/scheme consequent to the
application of the above increase to the current basic rate.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.