FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TILLOTSON LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay increases
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1973 and is engaged in the manufacture of carburettors for two stroke engines. The plant in Tralee is solely involved in production for export and employs approximately 160 workers. The dispute concerns a claim for a pay increase.
In October 2000, the Union made a claim for a pay increase under Chapter 9 of Partnership 2000. The Company rejected the claim, citing its difficult financial situation. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place on the 27th of March, 2001. At the hearing , the Union reiterated its claim and also suggested some form of gain-sharing for its members. The Company again rejected the claim. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of August, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of September, 2001, in Tralee.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believes that Chapter 9 of Partnership 2000 provides scope for a flexible approach to allow workers to be rewarded above the minimum terms of the agreement under the heading of productivity and upskilling . At present, the workers are low paid and late starters in terms of wage agreements.
2. Many other companies have found ways of rewarding their employees over and above the terms of Partnership 2000 (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has only 4% of the world market for the carburettors it produces. The remaining 96% is produced in countries which have extremely low labour costs, putting the Company at a major competitive disadvantage. Labour costs alone account for 45% of total costs. The Company is not in any position to pass on increases in costs to its customers.
2. Concession of the Union's claim would represent a very real and direct threat to the on-going viability of the Tralee plant. The Company is fully committed to the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. In the current year alone, the Company has applied a 7.5% increase to the basic rate of pay of the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having taken into consideration all aspects of this claim, the Court accepts that the Company is experiencing financial difficulties at present. The Company indicated that it is trying to develop new products to protect their position into the future.
The Court recommends that this claim should be deferred for a period of one year when the financial circumstances of the Company should be reviewed. If there is no significant change at that point, consideration should be given by both parties as to the possibility of agreeing cost savings which, in the spirit of Chapter 9, should be shared with the workforce.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th October, 2001______________________
C'ON/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.