Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86177 Case Number: LCR10765 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RIDGE TOOL CO. - and - AUEW |
Claim on behalf of 78 factory workers for the payment of a Christmas bonus.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions and subsequent
correspondence from both parties does not find sufficient grounds
for recommending concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86177 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10765
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10765
PARTIES: RIDGE TOOL COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS'
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 78 factory workers for the payment of a
Christmas bonus.
Background:
2. The Company is one of a number of subsidiaries worldwide of
Emerson Electric Company U.S.A. and employs approximately 117
workers at its plant in Cork. In December, 1985, the Unions, on
behalf of the workers here concerned, served a claim on the
Company for the payment of a Christmas bonus as paid by the parent
Company and by other of its subsidiaries. The Company rejected
the claim and as no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred, on 15th January, 1986, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation conference, held
on 6th February, 1986, the Union quantified its claim as one for
the payment at Christmas to the workers of a bonus equal to four
weeks' pay as applying in Belgium and the U.S.A. The conciliation
conference failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
Due to the unavailability of the parties the Court was unable to
investigate the dispute until 1st October, 1986, in Cork.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) Through a copy of the newsletter issued by the parent
Company in the U.S.A. (copy supplied to the Court),
the Unions' have established that the Ridge Tool
Company has been paying Christmas bonuses to its
workforces since 1939; totalling #20m paid in bonuses
to date - #1m of which was paid last year. The
Company's Cork management have, in the past, denied
the existence of Christmas bonuses in Ridge Tool and
has refused to pay such a bonus to the workers
concerned. Now that it has been established that it
is Company policy to pay Christmas bonuses elsewhere,
this payment should also apply to the Company's Cork
plant.
(ii) Information available to the Union suggests that a
bonus equal to four weeks' pay is paid to workers at
Christmas by the parent Company in the U.S.A. and by
its Belgium subsidiary. The Unions are seeking a
similar payment to the workers concerned in the
Company's Cork subsidiary.
(iii) The workers concerned do the same type of work as
workers employed by the parent Company and at other
subsidiaries. In fact workers at the Cork plant are
required to correct faulty produce from the U.S.A.
and Belgium plants. Therefore, no valid reasons
exist why the payment of a Christmas bonus should not
be extended to the workers concerned.
(iv) The workers have co-operated fully with the Company
over the years and have contributed to its viability
and competitiveness worldwide. Despite this they
have been discriminated against by the denial to them
of a Christmas bonus over the years which has been
available to Ridge Tool employees elsewhere.
(v) The payment of Christmas bonuses is a feature in
employments both at local and national level.
(vi) The Unions' claim is fully justified and should be
conceded.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Cork plant is competing with other Ridge
facilities for a limited overall volume of business
and its payroll costs have increased in recent years
at a greater rate than any other facility in the
group. The continuing weakness of the U.S. dollar
has further militated against the Cork operation. In
these circumstances, the Company cannot concede this
or any other claim of a cost increasing nature.
(b) Protracted negotiations, with the assistance of a
Labour Court conciliation officer, took place between
the parties in connection with the 25th wage round.
The settlement involved a restructuring of the
Company's pay structure which was necessary in
securing the Company's future viability. It was
clearly understood that no claims of a cost
increasing nature would be served on the Company
during the duration of the 25th wage round agreement
which expired on 31st August, 1986.
(c) The Company accepts the Unions' contention that a
bonus payment was conceded by the Belgium plant in
1970. In 1974 it was agreed, in a collective
bargaining agreement for the Belgium metal working
industry, that all companies gradually go to the
payment of a 13th month. This agreement was accepted
by the Belgium plant. However, this is not relevant
to the Cork plant where economic circumstances are
completely different.
(d) In all the circumstances, the claim must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions and subsequent
correspondence from both parties does not find sufficient grounds
for recommending concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___21st___October, 1986. ___________________
T. McC. / M. F. Deputy Chairman