INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
G BRUSS GBMH
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Non-Payment of Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) 2%.
2. The Company commenced production at Finisklin Road, Sligo in 1982 manufacturing radical symmetric seals (o’rings), rubber form parts and gaskets for export. The company employs 338 people of which 311 are hourly paid and are members of SIPTU.
The dispute concerns the non-payment of the 2% due under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
- The issue 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 10th October, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Sligo on the 28th May, 2002, the earliest date agreeable to both parties.
At the Court hearing both parties requested the Court to allow the inclusion of a claim for the 1% lump sum provided under the PPF. The Court agreed to the inclusion of this claim and heard the case accordingly.
3. 1. Members have contributed to the success of the company over its 20 year history.
2 The company is profitable and has been for some time now.
3. Pay rates are not the highest in the industry.
4. 1. The Company are not in a position to fund the 2% and 1% PPF increases.
2. Three of 12 companies operating within the Automotive Component Sector in the North West Region have ceased trading in recent months with the loss of 400 jobs approx., and another company has seen a reduction of employees.
3. The Company is part of a vulnerable sector and is experiencing major challenges to return to profitability.
4. The Company has been experiencing a very difficult trading situation.
5. The Company is facing intense competitive pressures from other competitors based in Eastern Europe.
6. There would be serious cost implications for the Company should there be any concession to the Union’s claim. Any concessions would impact negatively on the Company's competitiveness.
The claim before the Court was for the payment of the 2% as provided under the terms of the supplementary agreement to the P.P.F as agreed between the social partners. At the request of both parties, the Court decided to allow the inclusion of a claim for the 1% lump sum, as also provided by these terms.
Having examined the information presented, the Court is satisfied that at this point in time, due to it's difficult trading position, the Company is not in a position to pay the
supplementary terms of the P.P.F. Therefore, the Court recommends the Union should defer both claims until June 2003, when the situation should be reviewed in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. If necessary, these claims may be referred back to the Court at that time, for final adjudication.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th June, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Caroline Hayes, Court Secretary.