Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95425 Case Number: LCR14895 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning (1) Rationalisation - redundancies (2) Pay claim and the introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and the subsequent
documentation supplied recommends as follows:-
1. Redundancies
1.1 That the number of redundancies at this time should be
14. That should the Company require further
redundancies these should be sought at the appropriate
time.
1.2 That without precedent and in the circumstances of this
case employees made redundant be paid 4 weeks per year
of service plus statutory entitlements.
2. Pay
The Court is satisfied that the Company and the Union by
agreement adjusted pay rates by reference to national
agreements.
In 1993 the parties agreed to adjust their rates of pay by
reference to phase 2 of the PESP, phase 3 to apply with
effect from 1st April, 1994 and the agreement to expire on
31st March, 1995.
The parties are now covered by the terms of the P.C.W. and
the Court recommends the 1st phase of that agreement should
apply with effect form 1st April, 1995.
3. Sick Pay Scheme
The Court recommends the parties negotiate an appropriate
Sick Pay Scheme. These negotiations to be completed on or
before 31st December, 1995.
4. Clause 3 PESP
The Court is of the view that since this claim was not served
in the lifetime of PESP it is inappropriate that it be
pursued.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95425 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (1) Rationalisation - redundancies
(2) Pay claim and the introduction of a
Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures chipboard products for the Irish and
UK markets and employs 170 workers. In recent years the
Company has experienced difficult trading conditions. In
April, 1995, management proposed a rationalisation programme
which required 31 voluntary redundancies in various areas of
the plant. The Company offered a redundancy package of 3
weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements.
The Union claimed 8 weeks' pay plus statutory. At subsequent
local discussions the Union submitted a claim for 6% increase
in pay, review of shift premia, inclusion of overtime pay in
holidays, service holidays, and the introduction of a sick
pay scheme. Local discussion failed to resolve the dispute
which was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on the 4th April, 23rd
June and 20th July, 1995. At conciliation the Union accepted
that its claims for 6% wage increase, shift premia, and
service holidays were precluded under the terms of the PCW.
Following the final conciliation conference the positions of
both parties were as follows:-
Union's claim Company's offer
Redundancy - 3.50 weeks plus statutory -
6 weeks plus statutory numbers of workers initially
required - 14
Phase 1 of PCW - Application from
application from 1st Jan, 1995 1st August, 1995
Clause 3 of PESP - phasing is Rejected
acceptable
Sick Pay Scheme - Introduction Prepared to discuss following
from 1st November, 1995 completion of talks on pay
and redundancy
Further agreement was not possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 24th July, 1995. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 7th September, 1995.
A letter recommendation was issued on the 12th September,
1995.
CLAIM 1 - REDUNDANCIES
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's offer is not acceptable. In a previous
redundancy situation at the plant substantial payments
were made to drivers who were no longer required.
However, they were given the opportunity to continue
their employment with the Company in the general work
area.
2. While the Union originally claimed 8 weeks plus
statutory it reduced its claim to a very reasonable 6
weeks plus statutory.
3. The Union regards the Company's proposals on the number
of redundancies as unjustifiable in view of the amount
of business which the Company presently has in hand.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is presently experiencing a number of
problems making it uncompetitive, including low margin
business, depressed prices, excessive cost of raw
materials, uncompetitive exchange rate, vigorous price
competition and comparatively high labour costs. In
order to remain competitive it is essential to implement
these redundancies.
2. The Company's final offer is consistent with custom and
practice in the Company and in accordance with norms in
the region. The offer is entirely reasonable in the
context of the Company's financial position and
difficult trading circumstances.
CLAIM 2 - PAY, SICK PAY SCHEME
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The pay rates of the workers concerned are average.
They need to do overtime and shift work to bring their
wages up to a reasonable level. The pay programmes were
specifically aimed at workers on lower rates.
2. The Company is profitable and can afford to pay these
modest increases under the PESP and PCW.
3. It is reasonable to expect that the Company would
implement a sick pay scheme. The PCW provided that
arrangements may be made by agreement between the
parties for the introduction of a sick pay scheme. The
Union is prepared to enter discussions with the Company
with a view to having a suitable scheme introduced.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company is attempting to reduce labour costs. No
additional wage increases can be entertained without
adversely affecting the cost base in an extremely
competitive market. The Company's offer to pay the
terms of the PCW after a short pause is very reasonable.
2. Payment of Clause 3 of the PESP did not arise in
discussions with the Union in 1993. Raising such a
claim subsequent to be expiry of that agreement is
unacceptable and contrary to the general understandings
on this issue.
3. While management accepts that the sick pay scheme may be
discussed in the context of Clause 4 of the PCW the
Company contends that its present difficulties do not
allow for the introduction of such a scheme at this
time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and the subsequent
documentation supplied recommends as follows:-
1. Redundancies
1.1 That the number of redundancies at this time should be
14. That should the Company require further
redundancies these should be sought at the appropriate
time.
1.2 That without precedent and in the circumstances of this
case employees made redundant be paid 4 weeks per year
of service plus statutory entitlements.
2. Pay
The Court is satisfied that the Company and the Union by
agreement adjusted pay rates by reference to national
agreements.
In 1993 the parties agreed to adjust their rates of pay by
reference to phase 2 of the PESP, phase 3 to apply with
effect from 1st April, 1994 and the agreement to expire on
31st March, 1995.
The parties are now covered by the terms of the P.C.W. and
the Court recommends the 1st phase of that agreement should
apply with effect form 1st April, 1995.
3. Sick Pay Scheme
The Court recommends the parties negotiate an appropriate
Sick Pay Scheme. These negotiations to be completed on or
before 31st December, 1995.
4. Clause 3 PESP
The Court is of the view that since this claim was not served
in the lifetime of PESP it is inappropriate that it be
pursued.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th September, 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.