Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87819 Case Number: LCR11597 Section / Act: S67 Parties: VITA CORTEX - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
27th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider that there are reasonable grounds
upon which it could base a recommendation for the extension of the
factory bonus scheme into the clerical area. The Court is of the
view that the Company's offer, made in June, 1987, of a 3%
increase in basic wage should be accepted and so recommends.
The Court further recommends that the Union accept a Company offer
of a further 1% increase from 1st December, 1987, for the
co-operation and investigation of a fully computerised in-house
system of costing and accounting and that the Company offer a
further 1% when such a system is in place.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87819 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11597
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: VITA CORTEX
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 27th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union on behalf of 12 clerical employees in the Company
sought the terms of a wage agreement concluded with production
employees, who agreed a bonus scheme related to factory output
which yields an average bonus of #9 - #10 per week. Drivers who
were not included in the bonus scheme agreed to a 3% increase for
12 months. The increase in earnings was founded on a productivity
bonus scheme based on the conversion of blocks at Cork, and the
transport of blocks to Dublin, Navan, and Belfast branches of the
Company.
The Company was prepared to offer the clerical employees a 3%
increase but were not prepared to acede to the Union's claim that
the bonus scheme average percentage increase of 7.66%, form the
basis of a 27th round agreement between the Company and the Union.
The Company did however, wish to have considered a co-operation
scheme with a view to introducing an in-house computerised system.
The Union's view on this is that it is a completely separate
matter from the 27th wage round, and can only be examined when the
discussions on the latter are successfully concluded. No
agreement was reached on the matter at local level, and on 14th
July, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 22nd July,
and the 14th October, 1987. No agreement was reached, and on 30th
October, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Cork on 1st November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has argued that the bonus scheme could not
form the basis of an agreement, and that it could not be
applied to the office staff. This ignores the fact that in
1978 a bonus based on foam tonnage was paid to both factory
and office. Any agreement as to whether office and factory
workers earnings, (determined on the basis of factory output,)
can be applied on an equal basis to both groups has long since
been settled.
2. The work of the office relates directly to the activity in
the factory, and increases as the level of activity increases.
This was unequivocally accepted by the Management during
discussions on the 26th round.
3. 3. In the factory only the work of the block department and
block stores relates directly to both aspects of the bonus
scheme. The work of the conversion department and dispatch is
involved with converted blocks. There is no direct
relationship between the work of the finishing department and
trading stores with the output on which the scheme is based,
nor is maintenance directly related to it.
4. The sales and related administrative work of the office
staff relates not just to the output of the conversion
department, but in the context of the bonus scheme to
transported blocks converted in Dublin and Navan. The Company
fully accepts this.
5. Despite the refusal of the Company during discussions on
the 26th round to accept a link between the Dublin factory
wages and those in Cork, Dublin factory employees (including
the driver) are to have the same "bonus scheme". The Company
has argued that the Dublin conversion operation was too small
for a separate bonus scheme to be devised. This is hardly an
argument for the application of the Cork scheme to them. The
Union is not arguing for the Dublin factory workers exclusion,
but it can see no justification for the Company's attempted
exclusion of Cork office employees, while including the Dublin
factory, the work of which has only tenuous links with the
bonus money the workers there are now to receive.
6. The "Bonus" will be paid largely on the basis of
maintaining existing output levels. Despite this the Company
has emphasised possible productivity in the factory arising
from the deal and argued that this was a reason for excluding
office employees. The 26th round agreement was for a 4% pay
rise for all conditional on the implementation of full
flexibility in the factory. Had the strategy outlined during
the 26th round discussions been implemented the Company
accepted it would have involved productivity in both factory
and office. If output increases, arising from the 27th round
proposals, how can the Company argue that the situation is
different?
7. The only area in which there has been increased
productivity in the last year is in the workload of the weekly
paid office staff. This arose following a redundancy, changes
in pricing methods and new business, which is time consuming
in terms of sales work. The workers have coped as best they
can, but difficulties have arisen, and continue to arise.
8. As regards computerization, the Union are fully in favour
of this. However, the discussions cannot take place until the
27th round talks are completed. There is no "foot-dragging"
on the part of the Union on the issue. It merely wishes to
have matters dealt with in an orderly and logical manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in a position to improve on its
original offer of 3%, as this was the percentage agreed with
No. 1 branch of the Union. The inclusion of office employees
to the factory bonus scheme would be inappropriate and would
lead to difficulties with the existing agreement with the No.
1 branch.
2. The Company did offer, in the full knowledge of its
obligation to have the most modern technology available to
secure employment and remain efficient, to consider a
co-operation scheme to investigate and change the present
computerised accounting system, from a bureau system to an
in-house method. This was rejected, and a demand was put
forward by the clerical workers to be included in the factory
bonus scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider that there are reasonable grounds
upon which it could base a recommendation for the extension of the
factory bonus scheme into the clerical area. The Court is of the
view that the Company's offer, made in June, 1987, of a 3%
increase in basic wage should be accepted and so recommends.
The Court further recommends that the Union accept a Company offer
of a further 1% increase from 1st December, 1987, for the
co-operation and investigation of a fully computerised in-house
system of costing and accounting and that the Company offer a
further 1% when such a system is in place.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
17th December,___1987
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.