Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8799 Case Number: LCR11129 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WOODFAB LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Claim for: (a) an increase in pay under the 26th wage round and, (b) compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
9. The Court recommends that the parties should meet at the end
of June to conclude a 26th round wage agreement in the light of
the financial situation then obtaining. In the interim the Court
recommends a 2.50% wage increase payable from 1st February, 1987.
The Court also recommends that management should pay #130 to each
of the three workers concerned in final settlement of their claim
for compensation for loss of earnings.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8799 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11129
CC862009 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11129
Parties: WOODFAB LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for:
(a) an increase in pay under the 26th wage round and,
(b) compensation for loss of earnings.
General background:
2. The Company is engaged in sawmilling and employs a total of
105 workers. The Union, on behalf of the workers concerned (70
workers in respect of claim (a) and 3 workers in respect of claim
(b)) served the above claims on the Company. The Company rejected
the claims and as no agreement could be reached at local level the
claims were referred, on 2nd December, 1986, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference, held on
28th January, 1987, failed to resolve the dispute and the matters
were referred, on 11th February, 1987, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 25th March, 1987, in Arklow.
Claim (a) - 26th wage round
Background:
3. The terms of the 25th wage round expired for the workers
concerned on 31st December, 1986. Their current basic rate of pay
is #134.83 per week. In November, 1986, the Union on behalf of
these workers, served a claim on the Company for a 10% increase in
the basic rate, in respect of the 26th wage round. The Company
rejected the claim but offered a 3 month pay pause from the expiry
date of the 25th wage round followed by a 3% increase for a
further 12 month period. The offer was rejected by the workers
and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. At conciliation the Company withdrew its offer on
the basis that it was not now in a financial position to pay any
increase and sought the withholding of all claims in respect of
the 26th wage round until June/July, 1987. This was rejected by
the Union.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The Company's offer on the 26th wage round is
inadequate and out of line with the norm already
established under this pay round.
(ii) Given the low basic rate of pay of the workers, to whom
bonus or incentive earnings do not apply, together with
the heavy nature of the work involved and the type of
working conditions associated with such work, a much
higher pay increase than that offered by the Company is
warranted.
(iii) The workers' basic pay is out of line with that of
County Council workers locally who also have the
advantage of enhancing their earnings through various
schemes which apply to them.
(iv) Because of the low rate of pay obtaining in the
Company, the workers are not prepared to wait until
July, 1987, to negotiate a 26th round wage agreement as
requested by the Company.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company has been losing a considerable amount of
money over the past two years (details supplied to the
Court) and is therefore, not in a financial position to
make an offer on the 26th wage round at this time.
However, since February, 1986, the Company has
succeeded in reversing its previous losses and should
the Union be prepared to wait until June/July, 1987,
the Company may be in a position to make a positive
response to its claim at that time.
(b) The Company's wage rates are the highest in the
sawmilling industry.
(c) The Company's offer on the 26th wage round was made in
good faith at the time. However, based on a further
analysis of its figures, the Company was left with no
option but to withdraw the offer.
(d) In all the circumstances, the Company's position on
this claim should be upheld.
Claim (b) - compensation for loss of earnings
Background:
6. In May, 1986, the Company decided to cease pallet making
following which its boxwood mill closed. Arising from this some
workers were made redundant while others were transferred to other
jobs. A verbal agreement between the parties provided for
redundancies and transfers to take place on a seniority last-in
first-out basis. Subsequently the three workers concerned were
transferred to jobs to which a lower rate of pay applied
(originally five workers were involved but one has got promotion
while the other has left the employment of the Company). The
Union says that these three workers, because of the positions they
formerly held, were not part of the agreement, and that they have
more service than other workers who were not transferred to lower
paid jobs. Accordingly, it served a claim on the Company for the
payment of compensation to them for loss of earnings calculated at
52 times the loss to each, which it estimates to be #624.00. The
Company rejected the claim on the basis that in accordance with
the agreement on the matter those who claimed jobs rather than
accept redundancy would only receive the rate applicable to such
jobs. However, on the basis that it had already paid #130
lump-sum for loss of shift earnings to some employees, it offered
a once off lump sum payment of #95 to each of the three workers
concerned. This was rejected by the Union.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) The Union's agreement with the Company, arising from
the introduction of the rationalisation exercise, is
that seniority would apply to transfers to other jobs
from the pallet-making area. The workers concerned
were transferred to lower paid jobs than those which
they previously held resulting in a loss of
approximately #12 per week to each worker. These
workers were not employed as pallet-makes and
therefore, were not covered by the agreement. Also,
they have more service than those retained in higher
paid positions. On this basis, they should have
retained their old rate of pay on transfer or be
compensated for loss of earnings in accordance with the
Union's claim.
(ii) The Union's claim is justified and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) The claimants in exercising their seniority took up
their new jobs on the clear and agreed understanding
that they would receive the rate applicable to the job.
(b) This agreement was negotiated without any ambiguity or
allowance for a repercussive claim of any description.
(c) The Company in offering #95 per person, did so against
the background of other lump-sums being paid to other
employees and not as a recognition that the claimants
could break their agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court recommends that the parties should meet at the end
of June to conclude a 26th round wage agreement in the light of
the financial situation then obtaining. In the interim the Court
recommends a 2.50% wage increase payable from 1st February, 1987.
The Court also recommends that management should pay #130 to each
of the three workers concerned in final settlement of their claim
for compensation for loss of earnings.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
__________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman
22nd April, 1987
T.McC./J.C.