Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86342 Case Number: LCR10787 Section / Act: S67 Parties: A.B.S. PUMPS LIMITED - and - IT&GWU |
Claims on behalf of approximately 30 clerical, supervisory and technical workers. for:- (a) a shorter working week, (b) payment on a weekly basis, and (c) payment of Craftsmen's differential.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) Shorter Working Week:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (b) Payment on a Weekly Basis:
The Court recommends that the agreement made between the parties
following the issue of the Court's previous recommendation should
remain in force.
Claim (c) Differential with Craftsmen:
The Court does not consider that this claim has been established
and does not recommend its concession.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86421 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10787
CC86421 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10787
Parties: A.B.S. PUMPS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of approximately 30 clerical, supervisory and
technical workers. for:-
(a) a shorter working week,
(b) payment on a weekly basis, and
(c) payment of Craftsmen's differential.
Background:
2. On 23rd January, 1986, the Union, on behalf of the workers,
served a claim on the Company in respect of the 25th wage round
which included claims for the reduction in hours of work, payment
of salary on a weekly basis, and the restoration of Craftsmen's
differential. Agreement was not reached at local level, and on
26th February, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 17 April, 1986. Subsequent to this meeting the pay terms of the
25th round were settled, and it was agreed to refer the outstanding
claims to the Court. On 21 April, 1986 the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Wexford on 9 September, 1986 - the earliest
date suitable to both parties.
Claim (a) - a shorter working week:
Background:
3. The Union, as part of the 24th Wage Round sought a reduction in
the working week from 40 to 37 1/2 hours. The matter was referred
to the Labour Court and the Company argued that in 1980 it had
awarded a 6% increase to workers affected by a similar claim and
that it appeared that the Union was reneging on its agreement. The
Court did not recommend concession of the claim however,
Union's arguments:
4. It was not made clear to the Court at the hearing prior to
Recommendation No. 9092 that the 6% award was made to only 6 or 7
of the staff in the Clerical Section, whereas the claim was for all
workers in the Section. A 40 hour week for the categories
concerned is out of line with other similar employments (details
supplied to the Court).
Company's arguments:
5. The claim for a shorter working week dates back to 3rd April,
1980 at which time the company in order to maintain a 40 hour
working week paid 6% on the pay scales of those affected by a
similar claim. The Labour Court accepted this argument in
rejecting the Union's claim in 1984 (recommendation No. 9092
refers). From this it appears that the Union wishes to renege on
its agreement. It should be noted that with paid breaks etc. the
actual working week is approx 39 hours.
Claim (b) - Weekly Payment of Salaries:
Background:
6. The workers are seeking to be paid on a weekly basis. This
matter was also referred to the Court during the negotiations on
the 24th Wage Round and in Labour Court Recommendatuib No. 9092 the
Court recommended the following:-
"On the question of weekly payments the Court takes the
view that the Company should facilitate those employees
by the payment if necessary of fixed weekly
installments with overtime and other additions to be
settled on a monthly basis".
The Company agreed to an optional facility whereby an
interim payment on salary is made about the 19th of
each month in the overtime etc. settled at the end of
the month (detail supplied to the Court).
Union's argument:
7. The Court's Recommendation (No. 9092) in relation to weekly
payment of salaries was not implemented by the Company because the
entire Recommendation was not accepted by the workers, and although
some changes have taken place in the payment system it is still not
satisfactory to the workers. The Union now requests the Court to
endorse LCR No. 9092.
Company's arguments:
8. This issue has been finalised from 24th pay round negotiations
at which time the company agreed to an optional facility whereby an
interim payment on salary is made about the 10th of each month with
overtime etc. settled at the end of the month. (details with
Court). Weekly payment of salaries will increase administration
costs which must be included in future wage agreements. When it is
understood that an agreement has been reached on a given issue the
company considers it a breach of faith to reopen the issue at the
next available opportunity.
Claim (c) - Payment of Craftsmen's Differential:
Background:
9. Negotiations on the craft workers' scale concluded in 1986 and
provided for the consolidation of their basic rate and bonus
payment and the creation of two wage scales. The Union contends
that the craft workers also received an extra #4 per week and is
claiming payment of the #4 to these workers. The Company rejected
the claim.
Union's arguments:
10. (a) There are three separate negotiating units within the
Company and generally speaking the settlement reached
with whichever group settles first is applied to other
groups. However, during the currency of the 24th Wage
Round the Craft workers succeeded in having further
negotiations the result of which gave them an extra #4
per week. Basically the agreement reached between the
Company and the Craft workers allowed for the
consolidation of their basic rate and bonus payment and
the creation of two wage scales. All of the then
workforce was placed on point one of scale 2. Point
one of that scale amounted to #179.50 which in fact is
#4.00 more than the combined basic and bonus rates of
the craft workers.
(b) It is an accepted practice in this Company that if one
group of workers achieves anything over the agreed
terms of a Wage Agreement the other groups may look for
the same benefits. However, the Union's
representations to the Company have been rejected. The
Union contends that there has been a departure by the