FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UR-OK TEXTILES LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning payment of Phase 3 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures leisurewear and employs approximately 50 workers. At the beginning of 1996 the Company informed workers that it would not be in a position to pay Phase 3 of the PCW because of its financial situation and trading difficulties. The Company made a productivity based offer which was rejected by the workers. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 13th June, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 11th July, 1996. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 28th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The basic rates of pay of the workers concerned are very low . The first Phase of the PCW was due on 1st April, 1994. It was not paid on that date. Both the 1st and 2nd Phases were paid from 1st April, 1995. The workers made a major contribution by foregoing the first year's increase and expected that future increases would be paid on time.
2. The Company's response in proposing an increased productivity Bonus Scheme is not an acceptable method of conceding the payment due. The PCW was not conditional on an increase in production levels.
3. Even with the 3rd Phase increase the workers' earnings are very low. Yet they work with intense concentration, to achieve high productivity levels. Most workers earn approximately £15 per week bonus averaged over the year on top of a basic rate of £127.94. It is essential that the PCW is paid in full. The Union will then discuss any aspects of a proposed alternative bonus scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company experienced a particularly difficult trading year in 1996 with substantial losses being incurred (details to the Court).
2. The Company's productivity based offer was made to try to give workers an increase but to make it partially self-financing. The offer was rejected. The offer made early in the year is not now on offer due to the Company's financial situation.
3. The state of the Company's business precludes any increase is costs. The only realistic position for the Company to adopt is that all wage rates remain at current levels until the business position improves to a situation of sufficient profitability to allow for wage increases.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company should pay the 3rd Phase of the PCW from 1st December 1996.
In return the employees should enter into immediate discussions on the proposed new bonus scheme, these discussions to be completed within one month. If the parties fail to agree on this issue they can refer back to the Court for a recommendation.
The outstanding payment for the period April to December to be discussed at sometime in the future depending on the Company's performance.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th December, 1996______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.