LCR15400

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/446 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15400 (CC95/1133) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BLACKTHORN SHOES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member:

SUBJECT:
1. Implementation of phases 1 and 2 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).


BACKGROUND:

2. The Union is seeking payment of phase 1 of the PCW from the 1st February, 1995 and phase 2 from the 1st February, 1996 based on the average earnings of the employees.
The Company had to shed fourteen jobs in the last nine months because of trading difficulties and claims that it is not in a position to absorb any further costs. To do so would put more jobs in jeopardy. It stated that Clause 3 of the PCW took cognisance of a Company's ability to pay based on its economic and commercial circumstances (Financial details given to the Court ).

The Union claims that the pay increases provided for under the PCW were modest. It felt that the employees were entitled to these increases and was sceptical of the Company 's contention that it was unable to meet the claim.

As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was convened on the 19th October, 1995 and the 26th June, 1996. No agreement was reached. The Company indicated that it could only pay Phase 1 from the 1st July, 1996 and Phase 2 from 1st February, 1997 because of trading difficulties and would not pay any retrospection. The Union rejected these proposals.







As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 8th November, 1996.




UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The increases sought under the PCW are modest and should be conceded by the Company.

2. The workers have co-operated with management in improving efficiency at the plant. They have remained loyal to the Company by being available for work at any time and at short notice when required.

3. The Company was aware when the increases were due under the PCW and should have budgeted for them accordingly.

4. The claim by the workers is fair and just. Phases 1 and 2 of the PCW should be paid from the 1st February, 1995 and 1st February, 1996 respectively.




COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company has operated on short-time working for the past two years. It is not trading profitably and had to shed fourteen jobs recently.

2. The Company's main competitors operate on lower rates of pay. It has also experienced difficulties in relation to currency fluctuations on its export markets.

3. The Company had to reduce volume output from 3,000 pairs per week to 2,000 pairs per week.

4. The Company cannot afford any further cost increases. Any additional costs would put more jobs at risk.


RECOMMENDATION:

The Court having considered all the information before it is of the view that the proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer of 23rd October, 1995 were not unreasonable.

However, taking into account the Company's further deterioration since this proposal was made the Court recommends that the Company meet with the Union to agree its implementation.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
17th December, 1996______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.