Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86748 Case Number: LCR10852 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEARCAT INTERNATIONAL LTD - and - ITGWU;ITGWU;AEU |
Claims, on behalf of sixty four workers for an increase in pay and improved conditions of employment under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the financial position of the Company,
recommends that the Unions should accept the Company's proposal
that there should be a pay pause until the end of 1986. The Court
also recommends that the Company should meet with the Unions early
in the new year to review the position in relation to their 26th
wage round claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86748 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10852
CC861291 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10852
Parties: BEARCAT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS
ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claims, on behalf of sixty four workers for an increase in
pay and improved conditions of employment under the 26th wage
round.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of solid industrial
tyres, primarily for the export market. In July, 1986 it was
taken over from Midwest of America by another American company,
Sterling Tyre and Rubber Company, and a new Company, First Tire
Incorporated was formed. The 25th wage round expired at the end
of April, 1986 and in March/April various claims under the 26th
round were served on the Company. On 29th July, 1986, at a joint
conference with all the Unions, the Company requested a pay pause
of eight months' duration with the possibility of a review in
January 1987. There would be no retrospection in respect of the
eight months. This was rejected by the Unions and their claims,
as follows, were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court:-
(a) a 12% increase in pay for a 12 month period.
(b) reduction in the working week from 40 to 37.50 hours.
(c) an increase in shift premia from 16 1/6% to 20% (2 cycle)
and 20% to 25% (3 cycle).
(d) introduction of service leave scheme to yield 1 day after 3
years' service, 2 days after 7 years and 3 days after 10
years (present entitlement 20 days).
(e) introduction of paternity leave (3 days).
(f) double time before normal starting time for all shifts (at
present 2T for day shift and 1.50T for other shifts).
(g) leading hand rate to be increased from #5.00 per week to
#10.00 per week and indexed to wage increases for the future
- No. 12 Branch, ITGWU.
(h) service pay to be doubled to #1.00 (5 years) up to #4.00 (20
years) - No. 12 Branch, ITGWU.
(i) shift premium to be calculated on actual rate and not pt. 11
on the A scale (2 scales A and B in existence) - No. 2
Branch, ITGWU, (1 person affected), and
(j) introduction of training allowance of #7.00 per week for
supervisors (when training another supervisor) in line with
the arrangement for production workers - No. 2 Branch,
ITGWU.
No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 23rd
September, the Company position remaining as outlined at the
meeting on 29th July. The claims were referred to a full hearing
of the Labour Court and the hearing took place on 7th November,
1986.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) CLAIM (a) - INCREASE IN BASIC RATES:
The basic rates are very low (e.g. operative rate
#145.12) given the nature of the work and the
conditions of employment. The Company has refused
to negotiate on the claims on the grounds that it
has no money and must remain competitive, yet no
conclusive evidence of this has been presented to
the Union.
Last year, the Company argued to the Labour Court
that it had lost money in 1983 and 1984 and was
continuing to lose. Yet the Court awarded an
increase of 7.50% for 12 months. Since the claim was
served, mortgage rates have increased and are due to
increase further.
(ii) CLAIM (b) - REDUCTION IN HOURS OF WORK:
There is a clear trend towards reducing the basic
hours worked in this country. Unions have not been
able to insure a reasonable distribution of wealth
through the social welfare or taxation codes and are
therefore obliged to attempt a reasonable
distribution of employment by reducing hours of
work. Details of some of the companies where
shorter hours have been achieved were supplied to
the Court.
(iii) CLAIM (c) - INCREASE IN SHIFT PREMIA:
16.6% and 20% have been the established premia for
two and three cycle shifts respectively for many
years but there is now a very definite and clear
trend in manufacturing industry towards improving
these (details supplied).
(iv) CLAIM (d) - SERVICE LEAVE:
Due to the nature of the work involved, shifts and
environmental conditions, the importance of this
claim is stressed. Due to the unsocial nature of
shift work, additional holidays have been conceded
by many companies (details supplied). The Court has
also recommended additional leave for shift workers.
The Company has accepted the principle of service
leave, but the present entitlement of one service
day after ten years' service is totally out of line
with industry generally.
(v) CLAIM (e) - PATERNITY LEAVE:
In the light of the continuing cut-backs in health
care provided by the State there is an urgent need
for fathers to share the responsibility of
parenthood. A list of companies have recognised the
need for paternity leave (details supplied to the
Court).
(vi) CLAIM (f) - PAYMENT FOR EARLY STARTS:
This claim was before the Court under the 24th and
25th rounds. At present, only those hours worked
before 7.00 a.m. are paid at double time. This
creates an anomaly, whereby workers on the 11.30
shift who start four hours before their 11.30
starting time are paid time plus one half for the
four hours overtime, although at 3.30 p.m. the
operative concerned would have completed eight hours
work with another four hours to complete. A second
operator, starting four hours before the 7.30 shift
would be paid four hours at double time although he
is working the same four hours as the first
operator, given that overtime only arises after the
normal working hours have been completed. Double
time payment for work before normal starting time is
the norm in industry. The fact that shift workers
have variable starting times should not render them
ineligible for this payment.
(vii) CLAIM (g) - LEADING-HAND PREMIUM:
At present a premium of #5 per week is paid to a
small number of operators in respect of the
additional duties of leading hands. The premium has
remained unaltered since 1977 and was the subject of
a dispute referred to conciliation in November,
1985, together with certain other claims. The
conciliation officer at the time proposed a
settlement which was accepted by both sides. Part
of the settlement was that this claim be deferred
but that it would have to be met at some time. The
Company accepted the conciliation officer's
proposals at the time but are now trying to renege
on their commitment.
(viii) CLAIM (h) - SERVICE PAY:
The Union is seeking that service pay be doubled to
#1 after 5 years' service increasing to #4 after
twenty years' service.
(ix) CLAIM (i) - CALCULATION OF SHIFT PREMIUM:
This claim arises from a situation whereby two
quality control technicians are paid for normal
hours at the appropriate point on their scale but
have their shift premia calculated on the basis of
the lowest point on the scale. The Union is seeking
that their shift premium percentage be calculated on
their current position on the salary scale.
(x) CLAIM (j) - TRAINING-IN ALLOWANCE:
The Union is seeking a payment of #7 per week to
five supervisors when engaged on training of
personnel. Leading-hands in the operative grade
already receive a payment of #5 per week in respect
of training and an anomaly therefore exists.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Increases of any nature should be determined by what
the Company can afford and each case should be
determined on its merits. Bearcat International's
financial and trading position renders it unable to
afford any increase to anyone in the Company.
(b) The Company is not producing to anticipated levels
(details supplied). Its new owner is not a
multi-national corporation and in turnover terms is not
much bigger than the Company itself. The Company is,
in fact, fighting for its survival and everyone is
having to make their contribution. What is being
sought of employees is not significant if weighed
against the prospects of failure, bearing in mind that
projected inflation to the end of the current year is
estimated to be in very low single figures.
(c) Should any increase be negotiated in 1987 there can be
no question of any retrospection of compensation for
the pay moratorium sought for the remainder of 1986.
(d) Reducing the cost and improving the quality of the
product is the only route that can be taken in the
factory. Allied to this must be the retrieval of
market share, without which the Company cannot survive.
The pay pause across the board will assist in achieving
these goals.
(e) The Company's specific response to the claims is as
follows:-
CLAIM (a) - INCREASE IN BASIC RATES:
The Company's serious financial and trading position
merits no concession of the claim. Employees' rates of
pay in the Company are in the top rankings for the
Dublin area. As the bonus rate and shift rates are
based on basic pay increases will, in effect, be on
gross pay.
CLAIM (b) - REDUCTION IN HOURS OF WORK:
Our present hours of work are in line generally with
the rest of the country and due to the operation of a
three shift system, the introduction of a 37.5 hour
week would prove impracticable and would seriously
affect the Company's ability to survive.
CLAIM (c) - INCREASE IN SHIFT PREMIUM:
The present shift premia of 20% for 3 shift cycle and
16.6% for 2 shift cycle were introduced only over two
years ago on the basis that the rates at that time were
out of line with industry generally. The present rates
are in line with industry generally and, in the
prevailing circumstances, the Company sees no
justification for the claim.
CLAIM (d) - SERVICE LEAVE:
The Company as part of the 24th wage round which
expired in May, 1985, introduced service leave on the
basis of one day per annum for employees with 10 years'
service or more. This recognised longer service
employees and apart from the financial considerations
which would mean a five fold increase against present
payments, having so many employees taking so many
service days throughout the year would cause severe
disruption to the Company's product process and
capacity. Due to low labour turnover during the past
two to three years only one employee would be exempt
from service leave.
CLAIM (e) - PATERNITY LEAVE:
This claim is totally unjustified in the present
circumstances.
CLAIM (f) - PAYMENT FOR EARLY STARTS:
The Company is not in a position to concede this claim.
CLAIM (g) - LEADING HAND PREMIUM:
At a future date following a complete review of the
position of "Lead Hands" and a possible redefinition of
existing duties and the addition of others, the Company
would be willing to review the rate and role for
Leading Hands.
CLAIM (h) - SERVICE PAY:
Whilst the concession of such a claim would not be
significant in monetary terms, in the present
circumstances any claim such as this is unjustified.
CLAIM (i) - CALCULATION OF SHIFT PREMIUM:
This at present affects only one person on staff, but
would represent an increase in cost to the Company.
CLAIM (j) - TRAINING-IN ALLOWANCE:
Being responsible for the training of new employees or
the retraining of existing employees has always been a
part of a supervisor's role in the Company. This is
not any new or additional duty and is therefore already
recognised in their present salary.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the financial position of the Company,
recommends that the Unions should accept the Company's proposal
that there should be a pay pause until the end of 1986. The Court
also recommends that the Company should meet with the Unions early
in the new year to review the position in relation to their 26th
wage round claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
__12th__December,__1986. ______________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman