Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86839 Case Number: LCR10876 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH TRADE PROTECTION ASSOC. - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of 20 clerical/administrative workers for an increase in pay, 2 days additional leave, and earlier finishing on Fridays under the 25th wage round.
Recommendation:
8. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, recommends that in the particular circumstances of
this case negotiations on a pay increase should be deferred until
the end of January, 1987.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86839 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10876
CC861484 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10876
PARTIES: IRISH TRADE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 20 clerical/administrative workers for an
increase in pay, 2 days additional leave, and earlier finishing on
Fridays under the 25th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company, which was founded in 1882 provides a debt
collection, credit reporting service to its members and employs
twenty workers. The terms of the 24th wage round expired for the
workers on 31st December, 1985. Their current pay scale ranges
from #6,750 - # 9,669 per annum. The Union, on behalf of the
workers served a claim on the Company in respect of the 25th wage
round, as follows:-
1. 10% increase on all points of the scale
2. Two days extra annual leave
3. 5.00 p.m. finishing time on Fridays
4. No pay pause.
The Company rejected these claims and suggested that the Union
withhold its claim until the Company's 1986 accounts were
available and analysed. This was unacceptable to the Union and as
no agreement could be reached at local level the matter was
referred, on 9th September, 1986 to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 22nd
October, 1986, and as no agreement was reached the claim was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 3rd December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The present wage round is due since 1st January, 1986,
the average length of each of the last three wage
rounds has been approximately 16 months, and there has
been a total of ten months pay pause in the last two
wage rounds.
(ii) The rationalisation programme implemented earlier in
1986, has resulted in a reduction of workers from 32
to 20 and a worsening of working conditions: increase
of 2.50 hours in the working week; loss of flexi-time;
increased duties and a requirement from workers for
maximum flexibility and interchangeability of duties.
(iii) At present the workers are on duty until 5.30 p.m. on
Fridays. By conceding the claim for early finishing
on a Friday the Company would still gain 2 hours per
person per week. A reduction of .50 hour would not be a
great concession by the Company but would be an
advantage to the workers.
(iv) The Company justifies its position by stating that the
money is not available. However on an annualised
basis the Company has made excellent progress and
although the benefits of a full year from the
rationalisation programme have not yet materialised
the potential gain exists and allowance should be made
for this. There would also be increases in revenue in
1986 compared to 1985 from membership fees.
(v) The Company has made a heavy investment in new
technology and should now complement this with an
investment in their employees.
Company's arguments:
7. (a) The Company is at present experiencing extremely
difficult trading and financial circumstances (details
supplied to the Court). It was necessary to implement
a rationalisation programme earlier this year, with
the co-operation of the staff and the Union. No
commitments were given at that time regarding pay
increases.
(b) The Company is of the view that the Union's claims for
improved annual leave and early closure on a Friday
are inappropriate. The working week was lengthened in
order to give members a full service with a reduced
workforce resulting from the rationalisation
programme. Present leave arrangements are the norm
for clerical/administrative duties and are therefore
not unreasonable.
(c) The effects of savings from the rationalisation
programme have not yet been felt and monies paid out
in redundancy should also be taken into account.
(d) The duration of previous wage agreements and pay
pauses were necessary to ensure the viability of the
Company. In 1986 the Company applied incremental
increases to those workers entitled to them.
(e) The Company is optimistic about its future. However,
in order to be competitive and to provide the required
service to its members and provide employment it must
use information technology and has therefore leased
appropriate equipment.
(f) The Company's main concern is dealing with the
medium-term problems. In the circumstances the
Company is unable to concede any cost-increasing
claims at this time and suggests that the Union
withhold its claim until the 1986 end of year accounts
are available and analysed.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, recommends that in the particular circumstances of
this case negotiations on a pay increase should be deferred until
the end of January, 1987.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P. Deputy Chairman