Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86640 Case Number: LCR10768 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ROTHENBURGER (IRELAND) LTD - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of a Production Bonus Scheme.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the evidence presented, the Court recommends
that the parties should have further discussions as soon as
possible on the question of the calculation of the production
bonus and also regarding the payment of an additional #1 a week as
provided for in the 1986 Economic Agreement. The Court will make
the services of an Industrial Relations Officer available to the
parties, if they so wish, to assist them in their discussions.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86640 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10768
CC86880 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10768
Parties: ROTHENBERGER (IRELAND) LTD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of a Production Bonus
Scheme.
Background:
2. In 1979 agreement was reached between the Company and the
Union on the introduction of bonus payment at Christmas in return
for the maintenance of a good and flexible working relationship.
The bonus was equivalent to an A/Machinist basic weekly wage and
was payable to everyone within the Company. In the 1984 Economic
Agreement a Summer bonus payment was introduced based on the
Christmas bonus payment. Following discussions on the 1985
Economic Agreement proposals were put forward by the Management
for a possible increase in the bonus payments which would be
linked to productivity, and the Union's claim for the introduction
of a sick pay scheme and an extra day's holiday would be discussed
at a later date (details of the production bonus scheme were
supplied to the Court). The Management pointed out that the more
the employees produced the higher the bonus payment they would
receive. It was also stated that it would be quite possible to
earn the equivalent of one weeks pay on top of the Christmas and
Summer bonuses. The proposals were accepted by the employees as
part of the 1985 Economic Agreement. In July, 1985 when the
Summer bonus was to be paid the
employees were informed that a further production payment of #60
would be paid. Initially this figure was rejected as the
employees felt, that as production had been kept at a high rate
they should be paid more. Following discussions a further #30 was
offered by way of unworked overtime. As this was the first
payment under the production bonus scheme, the employees decided
to accept and wait until the next payment. At Christmas 1985 a
similar situation occurred. Agreement was reached following
discussions that a monthly meeting should be held between the
Union and Management to assess each month's production figures
beginning January, 1986. At the meeting to discuss April's
figures differences arose over the amount of bonus earned (6 days
according to the Union, 1 day according to Management). A further
meeting was requested by the Union to discuss this issue. At the
meeting Management again stated their view and informed the Union
that if they wished to discuss the matter further they would have
to await the arrival of another director from West Germany in
June. A meeting was held in June, which broke up without any
progress been made. The Union then referred the matter to the
conciliation service, but Management declined an invitation to
attend a conciliation conference. The Union then referred the
issue to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court investigated the matter at
Limerick on 16th September, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The amount of bonus due to the employees, as calculated
by the Union, is based on production figures supplied by
Management (details supplied to the Court).
(ii) Management have failed to show how they calculated the
bonuses paid to the employees.
(iii)There is a difference of opinion between the directors
regarding the existance of the bonus production scheme.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The bonus payment is based on average sales over a six
or twelve month period, and therefore, individual
monthly figures do not determine the final payment.
Production figures could be high for the first month or
two and then lower for the remaining months.
(b) The productivity bonus scheme was introduced,
voluntarily on top of the existing bonus scheme to
stimulate the workers and give them the possibility to
increase their bonus.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the evidence presented, the Court recommends
that the parties should have further discussions as soon as
possible on the question of the calculation of the production
bonus and also regarding the payment of an additional #1 a week as
provided for in the 1986 Economic Agreement. The Court will make
the services of an Industrial Relations Officer available to the
parties, if they so wish, to assist them in their discussions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
______________________
Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman.
October, 1986.
M.D./J.C.