Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2002

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17357

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/251
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17357
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
HAHNEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED.
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Productivity payment (2) Improvements in the Sick Pay Scheme (3) Introduction of a Pension Scheme (4) Introduction of a Bonus Scheme.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company was established in Ireland in 1974. It produces photo and video accessories at its plant in Bandon, Co. Cork. It currently employs twenty nine workers.

The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for productivity payment, improvements in the Sick Pay Scheme and the introduction of a Pension Scheme and a Bonus Scheme.
The Company rejects the claim.






The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th of April, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of December, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.

The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. As a result of staff reductions the remaining staff have taken on extra work without extra payment.

2. The workers concerned are on low wages. The introduction of a Bonus Scheme is not unreasonable and it could be of benefit to the Company.

3. A proper defined Benefit Pension Scheme should be introduced.

4. The Sick Pay Scheme in existence allows for ten days payment per year plus two uncertified days. The offer to extend the benefit to twenty days per year with the elimination of the two uncertified days does not bring the scheme into line with normal Sick Pay Schemes.

5. The Company is in a very sound financial position and, therefore, can afford to improve the conditions of employment of its employees.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company has complied with all national pay agreements. In September, 2001, an increase of 11.5% was paid to workers over and above the national pay agreement.

2. The staff concerned are not expected to work harder. As the quantity of work has increased the range of work has decreased.

3. The introduction of a Bonus Scheme would be cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.

4. The cost increases involved in introducing a Pension Scheme would put employment at risk and, therefore, the Company does not want to introduce such a scheme at the moment.

5. The Company made an offer in relation to sick pay improvements by doubling the number of days that an employee be paid for if out sick. This offer was rejected by the Union.


RECOMMENDATION:

It is noted that whilst one direct meeting did take place between the parties, there appears to have been little by way of meaningful negotiations on the Union's claims. It is further noted that the Company declined to accept an invitation from the LRC to

attend conciliation on the claims. In the Court's view the stance adopted by the Company in that regard is not consistent with the stabilisation provisions of PPF.

The Court recommends that the parties should now jointly refer the matters in dispute to the LRC for conciliation in accordance with normal procedure. In view of the delay in dealing with this dispute the parties should cooperate in expediting the process.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
13th December, 2002______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow