Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8751 Case Number: LCR11128 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KINGBURGER - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 33 full-time and part-time catering staff for an increase in pay, in respect of the 25th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends a wage increase of 5% for a period of one year
commencing on 1st June, 1986. This increase to apply to all the
workers covered by the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8751 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11128
CC861140 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11128
Parties: KINGBURGER
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 33 full-time and part-time
catering staff for an increase in pay, in respect of the 25th wage
round.
Background:
2. The workers concerned are paid on a hourly basis and their
current rates of pay, inclusive of the 24th wage round the terms
of which expired on 31st May, 1985, are as follows:
Up to 3 months service #1.84 per hour
3 to 6 months service #1.99 per hour
6 to 12 months service #2.31 per hour
After 12 months service #2.48 per hour
Following the expiry of the 24th wage round the Union sought an
wage increase of 8% for the workers but due to the Company's
financial difficulties at the time agreed to a pay pause up to
31st May, 1986, at which time the Company said they would review
the situation and would negotiate a pay increase with effect from
1st June, 1986, and give each worker a voucher at Christmas, 1985,
in recognition of their agreement to delay any increase until that
time.
3. Subsequently, the Union served a claim on the Company for a
10% increase for the workers concerned, in respect of a 12 month
25th wage round agreement effective from 1st June, 1986. In July,
1986, the Company responded by offering the workers a 5% increase
in the basic pay rates in respect of the 25th wage round. The
offer was rejected by the workers and as no agreement could be
reached at local level a modified claim of an 8% increase in basic
pay was referred, on 27th June, 1986, to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. The Court issued an invitation to the
Company on 8th July, 1986, to attend conciliation. On 12th
December, 1986 the Company agreed to attend a conciliation
conference. At a conciliation conference, held on 22nd January,
1987, the Company stated that the 5% increase already offered had
now been withdrawn on the basis of its inability to pay. The
matter was then referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 19th March,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Having regard to the length of time which has elapsed
since the workers last received a pay increase, the
offer by the Company of a 5% increase in basic rates
was totally inadequate.
(ii) The Union experienced great difficulty in getting the
Company to make an offer on this claim (details
supplied to the Court) despite its promise to negotiate
an increase in June, 1986 with the Union, in
recognition of the workers' agreement to delay the
increase from 1985. When the workers rejected the
Company's offer of a 5% increase in respect of the 25th
wage round and sought a 3% increase on this offer, the
Company agreed to improve its offer. Instead, it has
now withdrawn the 5% offer.
(iii) The Company is claiming inability to pay the 25th wage
round because of its current financial difficulties.
However, wage costs are not the over-riding factor in
the Company's difficulties, given that these account
for only 23% of turnover. Also, the workers are aware
of unusual stock control practices resulting in
substantial losses for the Company. Therefore the
workers, who have always given their full co-operation,
cannot be held responsible for the Company's current
financial difficulties.
(iv) The Union finds it difficult to understand how the
Company can claim to be experiencing extreme financial
difficulties at a time when it is in the process of
opening two other outlets.
(v) In all the circumstances the Union's claim for a 25th
round increase of 8% on basic rates for 12 months from
1st June, 1986, is fair and reasonable and should be
conceded.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Due to its current serious financial position the
Company has no option but to plead inability to pay the
type of increase sought by the Union. The Company's
financial position is such that concession of
inappropriate levels of pay increases will jeopardise
its continued existence thereby placing the workers'
jobs at risk (copy of the Company's most recent audit
figures supplied to the Court).
(b) The Company realises that staff have not received an
increase for a long period of time. It was in
deference to those with long service that the Company
considered making an offer to staff with more than two
years' service. The Company felt it important that
such an increase could only apply from the date of
acceptance i.e. that there must be no retrospection.
The Company is still prepared to consider proposals
along these lines.
(c) The high rates of pay in the Company vis-a-vis its
competitors' pay rates have been a contributing factor
to the Company's financial problems.
(d) In all the circumstances the Union's claim must be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends a wage increase of 5% for a period of one year
commencing on 1st June, 1986. This increase to apply to all the
workers covered by the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
____________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
23rd April, 1987 Deputy Chairman
T.McC./J.C.