Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9362 Case Number: LCR13987 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: I.C.L. (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of 24 workers, for payment of the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that circumstances exist in the enterprise which would justify
concession of the Union's claim. Accordingly, the Court does not
recommend concession.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9362 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13987
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: I.C.L. (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by The Irish Business Employers Confederation)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of 24 workers, for payment of
the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 65 workers in the Republic of Ireland. It
paid the 2nd phase of the P.E.S.P. on the 1st February, 1992.
Subsequently the Union submitted a claim, on behalf of the 24
workers concerned, under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. Management rejected
the claim. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 1st
December, 1992. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 20th January, 1993. A Court hearing was held on the 1st
March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The guidelines which unions received from the Irish
Congress of Trade Unions indicated that if a Company's
performance was good then this justified payment provided for
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Company is successful and
made substantial profits in 1992. It expanded its operation
in Europe and also took over BA Systems in Dublin.
2. The workers concerned have made a significant
contribution to the Company and have accepted changes in work
practices and a number of redundancies. The Union's claim is
justified and the 3% increase should be paid from an agreed
date during the period of the 2nd phase of P.E.S.P. (i.e. 1st
February, 1992 to 1st February, 1993).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is committed to the P.E.S.P. and has paid
phases 1 and 2 of the Programme. Clause3 states that
"exceptionally employers and unions may negotiate further
changes in rates of pay". The Company's performance is not
exceptional. The Group's profits are declining since 1989
(details supplied to the Court). A total pay-freeze has been
imposed throughout the group for 1993. The Company's Irish
Management successfully argued that the basic terms of
P.E.S.P. should be applied and this has been done.
2. The computer industry is in crisis. There have been job
losses worldwide. The Company, in a changing market, needs to
diversify It has purchased BA Systems (in liquidation) and
will be offering 36 workers permanent contracts in 1993. The
Company has a five year growth plan and is prepared to recruit
a further 10 workers to develop new areas of expertise.
3. Concession of the 3% increase provided for under Clause
3 would have a detrimental effect on future business. The
present pay rates in the Company are comparable, if not better
than, similar employments.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that circumstances exist in the enterprise which would justify
concession of the Union's claim. Accordingly, the Court does not
recommend concession.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
10th March, 1993 -----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman