Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87465 Case Number: LCR11367 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LIMERICK LAUNDRY - and - ITGWU |
Claim, by the Union on behalf of 22 workers under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends a 26th round settlement as follows:-
(a) a pay pause from 1st January, 1987 to 31st March, 1987,
(b) a wage increase of 3% effective from 1st April, 1987,
(c) the Agreement to terminate on 31st December, and
(d) all increments to be paid effective from the due date
in 1987.
The Court also recommends that the parties should meet at an early
date to discuss measures to increase turnover and productivity.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87465 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11367
CC87844 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 AND 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11367
Parties: LIMERICK LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union on behalf of 22 workers under the 26th
wage round.
Background:
2. The 25th round agreement expired on 31st December, 1986, and
at a meeting on 7th April, 1987, the Union indicated that it
required a 26th wage agreement of 8% for 12 months with no pay
pause. The Company initially made an offer of 3% for 12 months,
however, this was later withdrawn at a further meeting held on
20th May, 1987, when the Company's audited accounts for the
financial year became available. The Company indicated at this
meeting, that based on the latest trading data available it could
not discuss any increase but would instead require an on-going pay
pause; however, an increase under the existing service pay
arrangements would be paid. This was unacceptable to the Union
who pointed out that the minimum increase acceptable was 6% phased
over 12 months. As agreement could not be reached at local
level, the issue was referred on 20th May, 1987, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court.
3. At a conciliation conference held on 4th June, 1987, the Union
proposed an amended settlement as follows:-
(a) Suspension of the 1987 increment for 12 months,
(b) Wage increase of 3% on 1st January, 1987,
2% on 1st June, 1987.
(c) Agreement to be of 12 months' duration and,
(d) 6 months' retrospection to be paid at Christmas, 1987.
The Union also indicated that it would be willing to extend this
agreement by a further 6 months on the payment of a further 3% on
1st January, 1988. As a settlement between the parties could not
be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 8th
June, 1987, for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing
took place on 28th July, 1987, in Limerick.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Union believes the Company's offer is no more than
paying the increment the employees contracted for at
the commencement of their employment and could not be
considered as a wage offer.
(ii) Whilst the Union acknowledges that the business could
be more profitable, it will not accept a situation
where the staff are offered nothing despite their hard
work.
(iii) The management continually point out that business is
bad and that the Company may not be able to continue,
but the fact is it is continuing and staff are still
working full-time, not part-time or short-time.
(iv) Research has shown that the average annualised increase
under 26th wage round was for 6.8% over an average
duration of 13.7 months. The Labour Court has
recommended over 70 times on the 26th wage round. The
average annualised increase recommended by the Court is
5.25%, which is an improvement on the Company's final
offer by 2%.
(v) Already large numbers of workers in the region have
received wage increases ranging between 4% and 7% under
the 27th wage round.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) As a result of the Mid-Western Health Board's decision
in 1983, to build a central laundry for its own use,
the Company lost a lot of business and had to make some
staff redundant (details supplied to the Court).
(b) The rates of pay in the Company are at the upper end of
the pay rates prevailing in the industry, even though
by industry standards the Company is a small
independent company and is facing increased competition
from smaller newly founded, grant aided, operations.
(c) The Company, based on its trading position and advice
from its auditors is not in a position to consider any
form of increase at the present time and will require
an ongoing pay pause to see it through the present
difficulties, (details provided to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends a 26th round settlement as follows:-
(a) a pay pause from 1st January, 1987 to 31st March, 1987,
(b) a wage increase of 3% effective from 1st April, 1987,
(c) the Agreement to terminate on 31st December, and
(d) all increments to be paid effective from the due date
in 1987.
The Court also recommends that the parties should meet at an early
date to discuss measures to increase turnover and productivity.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
Deputy Chairman
14th August, 1987
B.O'N./J.C.