FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FAMILY ALBUM (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. 3% Increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been in operation since 1978 and currently employs over 50 people. In October, 1995 the Union submitted a claim for a 3% increase under the local bargaining clause of P.E.S.P. A pension scheme was introduced by the Company in 1993 which it claims represented 1% of the 3% claimed under P.E.S.P. The Company is also seeking to extend the working week from 36 hours to 37 hours and wants to reduce the number of uncertified discretionary sick days from 12 to 6 days which would equate to the balance of 2% being claimed under P.E.S.P..
The Union rejected the Company's proposals following a ballot of its members and claims that the setting up of the pension scheme in 1993 was not traded for 1% of the local bargaining clause under P.E.S.P. Furthermore, the Company should concede the 3% claimed without any further changes in the working conditions of its members.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 7th of March, 1996. No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 24th of July, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union does not accept that the setting up of the pension scheme in 1993 was traded for 1% of the local bargaining clause under P.E.S.P..
2. The amount of concessions being sought by the Company in exchange for the 3% salary increase under P.E.S.P. is excessive and unacceptable to the Union.
3. The workers have contributed in a major way to the current success of the Company and the claim of 3% under Clause 3 should be conceded by the Company.
4. A high degree of co-operation and flexibility currently exists between workers and management. The criteria demanded by the Company under the local bargaining clause is already in place in the workplace.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company must remain competitive vis-a-vis its competitors. Extending the working week from 36 hours to 37 hours can achieve this and can enable the Company to remain open on a Friday until 5 p.m..
2. The Company's actuary recommended a contributory pension scheme of 3% for the employer and employees whereas the Company implemented a scheme to the value of 5%.
3. The Company's pension scheme was introduced in 1993. It believes that this is equal to 1% of the 3% being claimed under the local bargaining clause of P.E.S.P..
4. The Company contend that its proposals are reasonable and should be accepted by the workers. It proposes to reduce the number of uncertified sick days from 12 to 6 in exchange for a 1% wage increase under P.E.S.P..
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court recommends that the Company agree to pay 3% increase under the P.E.S.P. from 1st January, 1996 on the basis that the Union agree:-
(a) that uncertified sick leave be reduced from 12 to 8 days per annum
(b) that employees agree to work a 73 hour fortnight i.e. 50% of Staff will work on Friday to 5 p.m. on each alternate week.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
29th July, 1996______________________
L.W./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.