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.

 
 

LCR17281

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/402
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17281
(CC02/3863)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
GYPSUM INDUSTRIES LIMITED

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
SUBJECT:
1. Profit share.


BACKGROUND:

2. The claim by the Union is for a contribution by the Company towards a Share Participation Scheme, and is on behalf of approximately 140 workers.

In 1998, the Company proposed the implementation of a Development Plan which involved major changes to pay structure, overtime and shift work. (The Development Plan was implemented in June 1999). During discussions, the Union made a claim for profit sharing and gainsharing. The Company's reply was that it had already set up a share option scheme and that it would be seeking employees to participate. The Union was unhappy, claiming that it had not been consulted about the Company's share scheme.

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 17th of July, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of September, 2002, in Cavan.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The workers believed that in accepting the development plan the Company would introduce a share option scheme in which it would make a contribution. This has not happened.

2. Many companies have set up profit sharing schemes, including a number in the Cavan area (details supplied to the Court). The employer in all cases makes a contribution to the scheme.

3. The Union is prepared to participate further in setting up structures in accordance with best practice for enterprise partnership, if the Company is prepared to made a contribution to the share option scheme.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. Employees in the Company are well ahead of the norm in terms of having an approved profit share scheme with access to the tax benefits associated with such schemes.

2. The Company provides excellent terms and conditions of employment and has honoured its commitments under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).

3. The Company has been paying full bonus under the terms of the Development Plan where agreed performance targets have yet to be reached.


RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. It was pointed out to the Court that the Company's Development Plan has not yet achieved its targets. However, the Court notes that both sides have been working towards its implementation and that further efforts are needed by both sides to continue with this work.

Therefore, in recognition of the Union's commitment to complete this work, and in return for their full co-operation, the Court recommends that the Company should match the employee contributions to the Employee Share Ownership Scheme, up to a maximum of €500 per annum.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
7th October, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy 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