Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD/93/545
Case Number: LCR14250
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: H & N ENGINEERING - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
|
Subject:
Claim by the Union for:- (a) The Payment of the Programme for Economic and Social progress (PESP) Appendix A, Clauses 1 and 3. (b) The application of the 39 hour week. (c) The rationalisation of pay to bring three workers into line at #200 per week basic after the application of P.E.S.P.
Recommendation:
4. The Court notes that once more the Company did not attend the
hearing or communicate in any way with the Court.
On the basis of the Union's submission and in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary the Court recommends concession of the
Union's claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93545 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14250
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: H & N ENGINEERING
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for:-
(a) The Payment of the Programme for Economic and Social
progress (PESP) Appendix A, Clauses 1 and 3.
(b) The application of the 39 hour week.
(c) The rationalisation of pay to bring three workers into
line at #200 per week basic after the application of
P.E.S.P.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is engaged in steel fabrication and general
steel purpose built "out" buildings and employs four
workers. On the 29th June, 1993 the Union submitted
the above claims but was unable to engage the company
in local discussions. The matter was referred by the
Union to the Labour Relations Commission but the
Company refused to attend a conciliation conference.
On 20th September, 1993, the Union referred the issues
to the Labour Court under Section 20 of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the matter
on the 2nd November, 1993, in Clonmel. The Company did
not attend the hearing or communicate with the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Programme for National Recovery (PNR) and its
associated pay agreements for the private sector,
provided for discussions in 1988 on the issue of the
reduction of working hours.
3. 2. The four workers are long serving and perform
multi-skilled disciplines with total flexibility within
the plant.
3. The workers agree that if the pay rationalisation of
#200 per week is recommended then there will be no
knock on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court notes that once more the Company did not attend the
hearing or communicate in any way with the Court.
On the basis of the Union's submission and in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary the Court recommends concession of the
Union's claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
16th November, 1993 -------------
P. O'C/U.S. Deputy Chairperson
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.