FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TYNA KNITWEAR (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Payment of last two phases of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim by the Union is for the 3rd phase of the PCW - 2.5% due from the 1st January, 1996, and the 4th phase - 1% due from the 1st July, 1996.
The Company has pleaded an inability to pay since the Union first made its claim in October, 1995. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place in July, 1996. At the conference, it was decided that the parties would agree to bring in an auditor to examine the Company's books and financial records. However, the parties could not reach agreement on a suitable auditor and the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 19th February, 1997, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th June, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union would have been willing to supply its own auditor, an economist, free of charge. The auditor proposed by the Company was not acceptable as he was not independent from the Company. The Union has waited almost a year to have the case heard by the Labour Court as the Company constantly delayed the issue.
2. Whilst it is recognised that the Company does have some financial problems, the Union cannot know what the situation is unless there is some form of transparency from the Company. The majority of the workers are very poorly paid, with female workers only receiving £126 per week gross.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was willing to have an independent assessment made of its accounts. The Union, in a letter of December, 1996, suggested 6 accountancy firms but none of the firms would supply a full quotation for the job. The Company is already in serious financial difficulties and cannot be expected to pay for services beyond its means. It offered to share the costs with the Union but this was rejected. The Company has already suffered losses of £73,324 in the first three months of 1997.
2. One key problem area is the refusal of the knitters to co-operate. As they are the root of production in the Company it is crucial that they do co-operate. The knitters in the Company run eight machines but a consultant's report states that they should run twelve. The knitters achieve this occasionally but not on a regular basis. The Company is involved in a highly competitive market and cannot afford to pay any cost increases. Payment of the first phase of Partnership 2000 would be considered if the co-operation of the knitters could be achieved
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the parties use the Company representative and the Union representative, as discussed, to validate the financial figures of the Company.
The terms of reference to be as already agreed.
If the parties fail to reach agreement, the Court will make a recommendation based on a report from each side and any other information it may require.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th June, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.