FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ANORD ELECTRIC CONTROLS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Additional 2% of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures electrical switchgear and process control equipment for the home and export markets. It employs approximately 110 people. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of 30 trained operatives for the additional 2% of the PPF. These workers are represented by SIPTU whereas the electricians in the Company are represented by the TEEU. The Company has separate World Class Manufacturing (WCM) agreements with the 2 Unions.
In February 1999, the Union made a claim on behalf of the operatives because of a perceived growing gap in pay between the operatives and electricians. LCR 16515 issued in May, 2000, and was rejected by the Union. However, following a series of meetings, an agreement was reached in regard to a number of issues including service-related pay increases which averaged 16%-17%. The Company has now rejected the Union's 2% claim because of the increases already paid out.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 17th of July, 2001. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of September, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of March, 2002, in Dundalk, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreement in July, 2000, was concluded to resolve a number of issues which were in dispute at the time.
2. The workers got no increases above those of the PPF. What they received was the resolution to a dispute which overlapped the PPF.
3. The Company is extremely successful and profitable. The workers have continued to co-operate with the terms of the WCM agreement. The increase being sought is very small.
4. The Company has not claimed an inability to pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The initial cost of the increase from July, 2000, was 16%-17%. With the addition of the first 2 phases of the PPF, the compound effect is a 30% increase, something that the Company cannot sustain.
2. The Company was forced into the agreement in July 2000 because of the treat of industrial action.
3. As a result of the significant increases already paid out, the Company has suffered competitively and has had to lay off a number of people.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company should pay the 2% increase due under the revised terms of PPF with retrospective effect from the due date and the Union should enter into discussions with the Company on appropriate offsetting measures.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st March , 2002______________________
CON/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.