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.

 
 

LCR17366

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/238
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17366
(CC01/3259)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
SUBJECT:
1. 2% of Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company designs, manufactures and sells electronic power supplies to the communication industry. The Union made its claim for 2% under the PPF in March, 2001. The Company has claimed inability to pay.

The dispute 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 20th April, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd October, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. At the time that the Union made its claim, the Company made a profit of approximately €5.7 million.

2. There has been a major reduction in the number of workers - from 650 to 230 - and workers have suffered a pay freeze.

3. The Union's claim is simply to bring the Company into line with other companies in the industry with regard to pay rates.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company cannot afford to pay the Union's claim, and is invoking Clause 7 of the PPF. Its economic and commercial circumstances have been difficult for some time.

2. The Company is involved in a global market and faces competition from low labour facilities in China and Hungary.

3. There has been a major reduction in staff in the last few years. If the claim is conceded it could result in further job losses.

RECOMMENDATION:

This case concerns the Company's inability to pay the 2% under the revised terms of PPF. The Court has considered the financial position of the Company, and recommends payment of the 2% with immediate effect, but without payment of retrospection at this time.

The Court recommends that when the new Company accounts are available in April, 2003, the matter of retrospection should be discussed in the light of the financial circumstances prevailing at that time.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
18th December, 2002______________________
CON/BGDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, 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