FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLONMEL HEALTHCARE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for 15% increase in basic pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1972 and manufactures and sells a broad range of generic drugs from its 2 production plants in Clonmel. It employs 200 workers, 100 of whom are involved in the claim. The Union made its claim for a 15% pay increase in July, 2001, but it was rejected by the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of December, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of January, 2002, in Clonmel.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rates of pay in the Company have always been very poor, despite the application of the various National Agreements.
2. The Company has always refused to negotiate on any percentage increase in pay. The rates are low compared to those applying in the industry. The Union has succeeded in negotiating increases for other companies in the industry (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost-increasing and is in breach of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). The Company has always fulfilled its obligation under the various National Agreements, including the PPF.
2. The rates of pay are competitive when compared to other similar type companies in the industry. The Company had a very difficult 6 months last year but maintained full staff.
3. In October, 2001, the Company introduced service leave which increased annual leave up to 27 days per year. The Company also applies generous bonus payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that this claim as presented is in breach of the terms of the PPF. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th January, 2002______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.