FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GYPSUM INDUSTRIES LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Profit share.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim by the Union is for a contribution by the Company towards a Share Participation Scheme, and is on behalf of approximately 140 workers.
In 1998, the Company proposed the implementation of a Development Plan which involved major changes to pay structure, overtime and shift work. (The Development Plan was implemented in June 1999). During discussions, the Union made a claim for profit sharing and gainsharing. The Company's reply was that it had already set up a share option scheme and that it would be seeking employees to participate. The Union was unhappy, claiming that it had not been consulted about the Company's share scheme.
The issue 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 17th of July, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of September, 2002, in Cavan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers believed that in accepting the development plan the Company would introduce a share option scheme in which it would make a contribution. This has not happened.
2. Many companies have set up profit sharing schemes, including a number in the Cavan area (details supplied to the Court). The employer in all cases makes a contribution to the scheme.
3. The Union is prepared to participate further in setting up structures in accordance with best practice for enterprise partnership, if the Company is prepared to made a contribution to the share option scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Employees in the Company are well ahead of the norm in terms of having an approved profit share scheme with access to the tax benefits associated with such schemes.
2. The Company provides excellent terms and conditions of employment and has honoured its commitments under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
3. The Company has been paying full bonus under the terms of the Development Plan where agreed performance targets have yet to be reached.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. It was pointed out to the Court that the Company's Development Plan has not yet achieved its targets. However, the Court notes that both sides have been working towards its implementation and that further efforts are needed by both sides to continue with this work.
Therefore, in recognition of the Union's commitment to complete this work, and in return for their full co-operation, the Court recommends that the Company should match the employee contributions to the Employee Share Ownership Scheme, up to a maximum of €500 per annum.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th October, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.