Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86846 Case Number: LCR10886 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RACAL MARINE - and - EET&PU |
Claims, on behalf of 11 sales engineers and clerical staff, in respect of the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having regard to the difficult trading position of the
Company recommends a 26th round wage increase of 4.50% for twelve
months effective from 1st July, 1986. The Court further
recommends that the Union should accept the Company's offer in
relation to their other claims relating to clothing and meal
allowances. The Court does not recommend concession of the other
claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86846 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10886
CC861233 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10886
PARTIES: RACAL MARINE IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATION AND PLUMBING UNION
Subject:
1. Claims, on behalf of 11 sales engineers and clerical staff, in
respect of the 26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is part of the Racal Marine Group and is involved
in the installation, servicing and rental of navigational
equipment for the marine industry in the Republic of Ireland. It
has a total of 16 staff.
3. The terms of the 25th wage round expired for the workers
concerned on 30th June, 1986. The Union, on behalf of these
workers, served the following claims on the Company, in June,
1986, in respect of the 26th wage round:-
(a) 12% wage increase
(b) 1 year agreement (no pay pause)
(c) increased holidays
(d) 37.50 hour week
(e) overtime at appropriate rate
(f) full V.H.I. payment
(g) clothing allowance, #90.00 per annum
(h) evening meal allowance, #7.00 per evening
(i) lunch subsidy, #2.50 per day
(j) night subsistence, #30.00 per night
The Company rejected the claim but in the course of negotiations
at local level made certain offers on some of the issues which
were rejected by the Union. As no agreement could be reached at
local level the matter was referred, on 21st July, 1986, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference, held on 29th September, 1986, the Company made the
following final offer on the claims:-
(a) 26th round wage agreement of 12 months' duration with no
pay pause
(b) 3.50% increase in basic and overtime rates
(c) increase in clothing allowance from #30 to #31.56
(d) increase in lunch allowance from #1.95 to #2.10
(e) increase in dinner/evening meal allowances from #3.50 to
#3.75
(f) all other claims rejected
The offer was unacceptable to the Union and on 17th October, 1986,
the parties referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 5th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) While the Union's main concern in relation to its 26th
round wage claim is to have basic pay rates increased
and overtime paid at the appropriate rates
nevertheless it considers that concession of the other
items in its claim would be of minimal cost to the
Company.
(ii) The workers are aware of the Company's current
difficult trading position and in order to maintain
its future viability they have made a number of
concessions to the Company resulting in the performing
of duties not proper to their grades (details supplied
to the Court). For this flexibility and co-operation
they have received no additional pay or improvement in
working conditions. In addition, the sales engineers
involved have, on two occasions, moved to new
locations without seeking any disturbance allowance.
(iii) Over the years the workers have accepted pay increases
well below that paid to the majority of workers in
employments generally. Therefore, they were expecting
an offer in excess of that offered by the Company
under the current pay round.
(iv) The average increase under the current pay round is
approximately 6% for twelve months. Even four Joint
Labour Committees, not noted for recommending high
increases, have proposed an increase of 5% under this
pay round.
(v) The Company's offer on overtime falls short of the
workers' expectations which are that they be paid for
all overtime worked after normal finishing time at the
going rates.
(vi) In all the circumstances the Union's claims are
reasonable and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Having regard to the pay and general conditions of the
workers (details supplied to the Court) the Company
considers itself to be the best employer in the marine
electronics business in Ireland. The sector of
industry in which it operates is the only one to which
comparisons should be made.
(b) This 26th wage round claim has to be considered
against a market background of severe depression and
fierce competition in the marine industry in general
e.g. Irish Shipping, Verholme Dockyard, B + I's
reducing fleet size and in particular, the fishing
sector where the Company is involved. It appears to
be government policy to allow no expansion in the
catching sector - in fact a contraction in fleet
numbers is continuing. Fishing forms a very major
part of the marine industry in Ireland.
(c) The backbone of the Company's business has up till now
been the rental of Decca Navigator equipments.
However, due to contraction of fleet size and other
factors that business has shrunk by 30% in two years.
(d) In a market place which continues to be highly
competitive, the provision and sale of the Company's
service is vital for its continued existence. The
Company's operating costs are high and its returns are
low. This is reflected in the workers' time sheets
which they fill in every week. The Company has held
down all selling prices in order to remain
competitive. Prices have not been increased in two
years and rental has not been increased in 5 years.
The increases contained in the Company's offer cannot
be reflected in price increases, because of the
critical state of the market. Therefore, the response
to the Union's claim is the limit the Company can
afford in the circumstances.
(e) In all the circumstances, the Company's offer should
be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and having regard to the difficult trading position of the
Company recommends a 26th round wage increase of 4.50% for twelve
months effective from 1st July, 1986. The Court further
recommends that the Union should accept the Company's offer in
relation to their other claims relating to clothing and meal
allowances. The Court does not recommend concession of the other
claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman