Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93573
Case Number: LCR14327
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: THOMPSON ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Claim for payment of 3% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
Recommendation:
Given the circumstances as outlined by the parties, and the
provisions of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. the Court does not consider
grounds have been shown which would warrant payment of the 3%
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93573 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14327
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: THOMPSON ENGINEERING LIMITED
AND
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for payment of 3% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1985 and is a general
engineering Company. The Union lodged its claim for a 3% wage
increase under the terms of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. in 1992. The
claim was the subject of a Labour Relations Commission's
conciliation conference on 19th January, 1993. The Company cited
financial difficulties for its inability to pay the claim. A
second conciliation conference took place on 1st September, 1993
but the Company had not changed its position.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 20th September,
1993 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 12th January, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current rates of pay (details supplied to the Court)
for workers in the Company are very low by the national
standards. A survey done of 82 companies in 1990 showed that
only 6 companies were below the craft rate paid by the
Company.
2. The Company's claim that payment of the 3% P.E.S.P.
would damage its competitiveness is not reasonable when its
low rates of pay are taken account of.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was in a much stronger financial situation
when it set up in 1985 than it is today because of greater
demand for its product and fewer competitors.
2. A number of new companies have entered the market place.
One company in particular has caused a depression in the
market prices due to a grant aid. The Company has had to
obtain work outside the structural steel industry to survive.
Due to the competitive nature of the industry, any increase
in wages would put employment in the Company at risk.
3. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. refers to exceptional
circumstance, which do not apply to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the circumstances as outlined by the parties, and the
provisions of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. the Court does not consider
grounds have been shown which would warrant payment of the 3%
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th January, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.