Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87839 Case Number: LCR11612 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MARLEY FLOORING AND PLUMBING LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims, on behalf of ten general operatives and foremen under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to the duration of agreements during
the previous round, recommends that following a pay pause of 4
months an increase of 4 per cent be applied. The agreement should
be of 15 months duration and one extra days annual leave should be
granted also.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87839 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11612
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MARLEY FLOORING AND PLUMBING LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims, on behalf of ten general operatives and foremen under
the 26th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are three Companies on site at Lucan; C.P.I. Limited,
Marley Extrusions (Ireland) Limited and Marley Flooring and
Plumbing Limited. The claimants are employed in the stores
section of Marley Flooring and Plumbing Limited. The 25th wage
round expired on 31st March, 1987. At a meeting in April, the
Union sought a 10% increase in pay for twelve months, an increase
in service pay from a weekly 30p to 50p per year of service and an
increase in time keeping allowance from #1.25 to #5 per week. The
Company sought a nine month pay pause because of its financial
situation. This was rejected by the Union and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 15th
May, 1987. In the meantime the issue of the 26th round for C.P.I.
employees was the subject of a Labour Court hearing. The Court
recommended a five month pay pause followed by a 4% increase for
ten months. This was accepted by the C.P.I. employees conditional
upon an extra day's annual leave, to which the Company agreed. On
8th August, 1987, management made the same offer to the employees
of Marley Flooring and Plumbing Limited. The Union balloted on
and rejected this offer but modified its claim to a 6% increase
for twelve months and discussions to be held on the other two
items. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held
on 31st August, 1987 and the matter was referred to a full hearing
of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 3rd December,
1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Of 774 settlements monitored by the Union under the 26th
wage round the average increase was 6% annualised. The Union
is not prepared to accept less than this average. Details
were supplied of settlements in other companies in the
industry. The Labour Court issued over one hundered
recommendations on the 26th wage round and the average
annualised increase recommended was 5.08%. Seventy of these
recommendations contained no pay pause.
2. Many workers got their 26th round increases almost two
years ago. Already there are almost 250 27th round agreements
covering more than 13,000 workers. The majority of 27th round
Labour Court Recommendations contain better terms than that on
offer under the 26th round in this Company.
3. The 25th round in this Company was exceptionally lengthy
and involved changes in procedure. The increase was 6%
annualised, a shortfall of 1.4% on the average. It will be
difficult in the current climate to bridge this gap and it is
therefore essential that a pay increase in line with the
average under the 26th round be granted.
4. Workers in this Company have never had pay parity with
workers in C.P.I. In the past the Company has refused to
apply concessions won in CPI where there is a different and
better wage structure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer must be seen in the light of the
present difficult trading position. The plumbing area is
directly affected by the difficulties in the construction
industry. Competition in the marketplace creates serious
pressures on margins, resulting in some cases in a significant
reduction in prices to the extent that the viability of some
businesses could be in doubt.
2. Management's proposals were put to the membership in the
various Companies in the full knowledge that it was unlikely
that such increases could be passed on to the customer. The
emergence of low margins in the market place makes recovery of
labour costs almost impossible. The proposals have been
accepted by the majority of employees on site.
3. Management believes that the total remuneration package
in the Company is at least equal to if not more favourable
than in competitor companies. The claimants also have access
to discretionary overtime unlike other employees on site.
4. Concession of an award in excess of the Company's
proposal would have serious implications for the industrial
relations climate on site.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to the duration of agreements during
the previous round, recommends that following a pay pause of 4
months an increase of 4 per cent be applied. The agreement should
be of 15 months duration and one extra days annual leave should be
granted also.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
23rd December, 1987 ----------------
A.K./U.S. Chairman