Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87143 Case Number: LCR11118 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NATIONAL FURNITURE MFG. ASSOC. - and - NUWWM;UCATT;FTAT |
Claim on behalf of approximately 1,000 workers for an increase in pay and conditions of employment under the 26th Round.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends
(a) an increase of 3% with effect from the 1st April, 1987.
(b) a further increase of 3% with effect from the 1st
September, 1987, in respect of an agreement to terminate
on the 31st March, 1988.
The Court further recommends that discussions on a sick pay scheme
should continue directly between the parties.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87143 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11118
CC862012 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11118
Parties: THE NATIONAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
and
GROUP OF FURNITURE UNIONS
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 1,000 workers for an increase
in pay and conditions of employment under the 26th Round.
Background:
2. The 25th wage round for the workers concerned expired on the
31st December, 1986. The Union, in a letter dated the 23rd
October, 1986, sought an increase from the 1st January, 1987, for
twelve months of 10% on basic, a reduction in the working week of
one hour, an increase in annual leave of one extra day and
inclusion in the Construction Industry Federation sick pay scheme.
Due to the unavailability through illness of Management's
representative, no local level negotiations took place and on the
5th December, 1986, the Union referred the matter to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference on the 26th January, 1987, the Association made the
following offer in relation to pay:
(a) three month pay pause,
(b) #2 per week from 1st April, 1987,
(c) #2 per week from 1st September,
(d) 15 month agreement, to terminate on the
31st March, 1988.
The claims for a reduction in the working week and an increase in
annual leave were rejected while it was of the view that it would
not be possible to respond to the claim on the sick pay scheme
until it could be formulated to apply to non member firms (the
Association represents 62 firms which employ 1,000 people and the
industry as a whole employs 3,500/4,000). The Unions dropped the
claims on annual leave and a reduced working week and agreed to
further local discussions on the issue of the sick pay scheme.
However, they rejected the offer on pay and as no agreement could
be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the
24th February, 1987. A Court hearing took place on the 23rd
March, 1987.
Group's arguments:
3. (a) The Group at all times wished to conclude an agreement
prior to the end of the 25th wage round so as to avoid
any pay pause in the 26th round. The Association
purposely avoided the claim so as to prolong
negotiations and introduce a pay pause. The Court is
asked to consider this in its recommendation and to
concede to the claimants payment from the 1st January,
1987.
(b) The offer made by the Association at conciliation would
result in an overall net increase of only #2.12 or 1.45%
over fifteen months. In money terms it means #1.24 per
week for 65 weeks (details supplied to the Court). This
is not good enough when the cost of living expected for
the year is taken into consideration. In addition, two
budgets have to be overcome in the fifteen month period
of the agreement.
(c) Wages in manufacturing industries have moved away from
what was a difference of 17% in December, 1980 to 27% in
June, 1986 (figures as per Central Statistics Office,
details supplied to the Court). Thus the claimants have
fallen behind by 10% at June, 1986, on wages with
manufacturing industry. This, when coupled with the
expected increases in the cost of living over the next
fifteen months, does not make the claim excessive by any
standards.
Association's arguments:
4. (i) This is only the third time that the two sides have
failed to reach agreement on a wage round increase.
Financial and competitive pressure is such that any
increase is detrimental to the continuation of many
firms in the Association.
(ii) In 1986, the value of the Association's exports remained
at the 1985 figure of #27.2m while imports increased
over the same period from #54.6 to #54.9m.
(iii) The situation with regard to the rate of exchange was
considerably worsened by the gains in the Irish pound on
the pound Sterling in 1986. The situation to date has
been considerably exacerbated (details supplied to the
Court).
(iv) The total number of persons engaged in the manufacture
of wooden furniture has declined according to CSO
figures. In September, 1983 there were 4,500 employed
while in September, 1986, this figure was down to 3,800.
(v) Insurances based on payroll are rising all the time
while the recession means less offices and houses being
built which in turn means less furniture being sold.
Restrictive financial procedures, high interest rates
and shortage of operating cash also mean that many of
the Association's firms have financial difficulties
because considerable debts are outstanding and owing to
them.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends
(a) an increase of 3% with effect from the 1st April, 1987.
(b) a further increase of 3% with effect from the 1st
September, 1987, in respect of an agreement to terminate
on the 31st March, 1988.
The Court further recommends that discussions on a sick pay scheme
should continue directly between the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th April, 1987 John O'Connell
DH/PG ---------------
Deputy Chairman