Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD92153
Case Number: LCR13631
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: CORK EXAMINER - and - GRAPHICAL PAPER AND MEDIA UNION;NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Claim by the Unions for implementation of the second phase of the pay provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and for the local bargaining 3% of P.E.S.P.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. In view of the fact that the Unions have
already foregone half of the increase due under phase 1 of the
P.E.S.P. the Court considers that they are entitled to the
payment of the 2nd phase in full. Accordingly the Court
recommends that an increase of 3% be paid from the date of the
hearing and recognising the Company's financial position further
recommends that the amount of back money due i.e. 3% from 1/1/92
to 8/4/92 be paid not later than 1st week in September, 1992.
The Court does not recommend concession of the additional 3%
under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. at this stage.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92153 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13631
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CORK EXAMINER
and
GRAPHICAL PAPER AND MEDIA UNION
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for implementation of the second phase
of the pay provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.) and for the local bargaining 3% of P.E.S.P.
BACKGROUND:
2. Phase 2 of the P.E.S.P. is due for implementation in the
Company from 1st January, 1992. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. which
allows for local bargaining on a maximum of 3% pay increase is
also due for negotiation in 1992. In late 1991 the Unions
sought implementation of the 2nd phase of the P.E.S.P. The
Company pleaded inability to pay the 3% increase and indicated
that consideration of the terms of clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
could not be entertained. No agreement on the issue was reached
at local level discussions and the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission on 27th January, 1992. A
conciliation conference was held on 11th March, 1992 at which no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 16th March, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on 8th April, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1991 the Company and the Unions agreed on a
rationalisation package which produced savings for the
Company. The Unions also agreed to forfeit half of the 4%
pay increase due under the first phase of the P.E.S.P.
This package was accepted on the basis of the Company's
assurances that it was a solution to its financial
difficulties. In view the sacrifices already made by the
workers the refusal of the Company to pay the second phase
of the P.E.S.P. is unacceptable.
2. The P.E.S.P. was negotiated between the Government and
the social partners and its terms are mandatory on the
unions and employers. There is no inability to pay clause
in the agreement. The failure of the Company to enter into
any meaningful discussions on the implementation of the
second phase of the P.E.S.P. and the 3% local bargaining
element is viewed with considerable concern for future
relations with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT'S
4. 1. The Company is claiming inability to pay such an
increase as allowed under Clause 2 of Appendix A which
states:
"The increase in Clause 1 above shall be negotiated
through normal industrial relations machinery, due
regard being had to the economic and commercial
circumstances of the particular firm, employment or
industry."
2. The Company has accumulated a reserve deficit which
must be eliminated by an increase in profits and a
reduction in costs. The Company is developing a strategy
to build up reserves over the next 5 years which will be
unveiled to the Unions within the next three months.
3. In 1991 the Company received enormous co-operation
from all the Unions in implementing a rationalisation
package. The savings and benefits achieved from this
package must continue to build to ensure the long term
viability of the Company and the protection of employment.
It would be imprudent to agree to a wage increase of 3%
which would undo much of benefits of the 1991
rationalisation and would have a negative effect on the
Company's future strategy for survival.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. In view of the fact that the Unions have
already foregone half of the increase due under phase 1 of the
P.E.S.P. the Court considers that they are entitled to the
payment of the 2nd phase in full. Accordingly the Court
recommends that an increase of 3% be paid from the date of the
hearing and recognising the Company's financial position further
recommends that the amount of back money due i.e. 3% from 1/1/92
to 8/4/92 be paid not later than 1st week in September, 1992.
The Court does not recommend concession of the additional 3%
under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. at this stage.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
24th April, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.