FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAVID PATTON BUILDERS PROVIDERS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. On 24th February, 1994, the Union lodged a claim for payment of 3% under Clause 3 of the PESP on behalf of 12 of its members. Clause 3 of PESP states that "Exceptionally, employers and Trade Unions may negotiate further changes in rates of pay and/or conditions of employment which may be for an amount up to but not exceeding 3% of the weekly/monthly basic pay cost of the group of employees concerned". The Company rejected the Union's claim on the basis that it was not in a financial position to consider it at that time. The Union referred the issue to the Labour Relations Commission on 5th October, 1994, and a conciliation conference was held on 1st March, 1995. The conference was adjourned until 31st January, 1996, without prejudice, to enable the Company to reassess their financial position. No further progress was made and the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on 4th April, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th October, 1996, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has consistently pleaded inability to pay Clause 3 of PESP, yet the volume of business suggests that this is a very successful enterprise. The sale of a valuable site in the centre of town would have provided a major injection of capital, and the separation of two aspects of the business has also improved efficiency.
2. The present building boom in the centre of the town has provided substantial profits for similar companies. The workers concerned are placed at a considerable disadvantage in the area, because of their current low incomes and the fact that the majority of employers have paid the 3% increase. It is not unreasonable to expect that their ongoing co-operation and flexibility would be recognised by payment of the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot be described as an "exceptional" company within the meaning of Clause 3. It has recorded losses for a number of years (details supplied to the Court) and the future outlook is not optimistic. A substantial debt is owed to a sister company, while the profits from the sale of the site were used to reduce other debts.
2. Management recognises the workers' contribution, and compensation for relocation was paid to them in 1994. However, having regard to the economic and commercial circumstances of the Company, it is unable to concede the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court finds that the Company is not exceptional as set out in Clause 3 of PESP.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
4th November, 1996______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.