Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86705 Case Number: LCR10800 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NEW IRELAND ASSURANCE CO. - and - ASTMS |
26th wage round
Recommendation:
18. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends that the Employer's offer be amended as follows:
5% for eleven months from 1st March, 1986,
3.5% for seven months from 1st February, 1987,
3.5% for four months from 1st September, 1987,
and that the amended proposal be accepted by the workers concerned.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims made by
the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86705 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10800
CC86775 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10800
Parties: NEW IRELAND ASSURANCE COMPANY
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS
Subject:
1. Various claims by the Union, on behalf of 153 employees, under
the 25th wage round. The claims consist of :
(1) salary increase,
(2) computerisation and job security,
(3) improvements for temporary staff,
(4) holidays,
(5) preferential loans for car purchase,
Background:
2. The 24th wage round for the workers concerned terminated on the
28th February, 1986, and negotiations on the 25th round commenced in
March. Initially both the Irish Transport and General Workers'
Union (I.T.G.W.U.) and the Association of Scientific, Technical and
Managerial Staffs (A.S.T.M.S.) took part in local level negotiations
with Management but the I.T.G.W.U. subsequently withdrew. No
agreement could be reached at local level between A.S.T.M.S. and
Management and on the 28th April, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference on the 24th June, no agreement could be reached and on
the 27th August the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the
7th October, 1986, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
Claim (a) - wage increase.
Background:
3. The Company proposed a 22 month pay agreement, in three phases,
without a pay pause. The phasing to be as follows:
1st March, 1986 - 31st January, 1987, - 5% (11 months).
1st February, 1987 - 31st August, 1987, - 3.5% (7 months).
1st September, 1987 - 31st December, 1987,- 2.5% (4 months).
The Union's claim is for:
5% over ten months.
4.5% over seven months.
3% over four months.
Union's arguments:
4.(a) Although the Union regards the agreement proposed by the
Company to be unduly long, it would not, in principle, be
opposed to its duration if the salary increases attaching to
it were adequate. Management has argued that, subsequent to
the conclusion of settlements in other companies, the
inflation rate had fallen. It has maintained that this fall
must be reflected in any agreement negotiated in this case.
(b) It is extremely difficult to make any firm forecasts about
inflation and there can be no certainty that the present
tendency will continue. Furthermore, the Company has never
used this argument before. When wage negotiations were
carried on in periods of rising inflation, the Company never
conceded that this fact entitled the Union to seek
additional benefits.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) The Company's salary scales are in line with other
companies in the assurance/insurance sector and are also in
line with rates applying in other employment sectors
throughout the country, a situation which the Union
seemingly accepts as it has never claimed otherwise.
(ii) The Company's offer compares very favourably with the
proposed increases made by its main Irish competitors.
These are as follows:
Company A - 7.5% over 17 months (phased).
Company B - 8% over 18 months (phased).
Company C - 10.25% over 24 months (phased).
(iii) The 25th round came into operation on the 1st March, 1986,
at which time the annual rate of inflation stood at 4.6%.
Since then inflation has fallen to 3.1% per annum and is
forecast to continue to fall.
(iv) Even if inflation remains at its current level, it can be
seen that over the 22 month period of the agreement the
Company's offer of a cumulative increase of 11.4% is almost
twice the level of inflation for the period of the
agreement.
Claim (b) - Computerisation and job security
Background:
6. The Company is presently introducing a new computer package and
the Union is concerned about the consequences of this on the future
employment of its members. The Union is anxious that such fears
should be formally allayed by the Company.
Union's arguments:
7. (a) The Union proposes two seperate agreements to resolve this
issue. The first would deal with salary increases only.
The second, which could be of short duration, would cover
technological development. The advantage of such an
approach would be that it would enable the employees
concerned to enter a salary agreement without feeling that,
for the duration of the agreement, they would have forfeited
the right to question any technological innovation,
irrespective of the implications which it might have for
their employment.
(b) The Company, however, has shown no interest in such an
approach, preferring instead to adhere to what it describes
as a traditional, all-embracing agreement which covers all
aspects of employment. It maintains that salary increases
under such an agreement include an element in respect of
technology and that acceptance of any technological
innovation which the Company may wish to introduce.
(c) The Union contends that the Company view is out-dated. The
most note worthy feature of new technology at present is the
rapid rate of change associated with it. It is unreasonable
to expect employees to enter into long-term agreements on
technology the impact of which on their future employment is
totally unpredictable.
(d) The Union also proposed that if the Company wanted a
comprehensive agreement, it would be necessary to include in
it a specific guarantee safeguarding future employment. The
Company did, in fact, undertake to draft such a provision
and it is outlined in a letter from the Company dated 23rd
September, 1986. The provisions under the heading
'Computerisation' in the Company's letter of May, 5, 1986,
which contains its final offer, are totally unsatisfactory.
It contains nothing but an undertaking that consultation
will take place in the event of redundancies occurring.
(e) The failure of the Company to include a more specific