Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86843 Case Number: LCR10952 Section / Act: S67 Parties: STUDIO EYEWEAR - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning claims under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Company's offer is fair
and reasonable and recommends that it should be accepted by the
workers concerned.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86843 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10952
CC861618 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10952
Parties: STUDIO EYEWEAR LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning claims under the 26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company which is located in Ennis, Co. Clare, is engaged
in the production of spectacle frames for the export market. On
27th July, 1986, the Union lodged the following claims on behalf
of its members (approximately 170 people employed as general
operatives) under the 26th wage round which is due to take effect
from 1st May, 1986:-
(a) A 12 month agreement.
(b) 15% increase to apply to all rates, including bonus.
(c) One extra day's holidays.
(d) Working week to be reduced to 37.50 hours.
The employees covered by the claim fall into two groups, one group
earning #113.54 per week plus maximum bonus of #17.65, the second
group earning #125.20 per week plus maximum bonus of #21.92. The
Company rejected this claim and put forward an offer of 3%
increase in basic rates. Subsequently, the Company reached
agreement with three sections. (The Supervisory section, the
craftsmen section, and the administrative staff). The agreement
reached was (1) a 5% increase in basic rates, with effect from 1st
May, 1986 for a 12 month period. (2) No further claims of a cost
increasing nature to be served for the duration of the agreement.
At a meeting between the Company and the Union held on 13th
October, 1986, the Company indicated that it would apply the same
terms as the above to the general operatives. The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court and a
conciliation conference was held on 22nd October, 1986. As no
agreement could be reached both parties agreed to refer the issue
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held in Limerick on 2nd December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) While the Company insist that all wage settlements in
the past have been the same for all grades within the
employment, the supervisors have a much higher rate of
pay plus extra benefits (details supplied to the Court)
than the general operatives.
(b) We feel that the Company cannot justify its resistance
to the Union's claim for a greater increase than that
which has been paid to the Supervisory grade.
(c) Having regard to the higher rates and benefits enjoyed
by other grades it is most unfair of the Company to
expect that the same percentage wage increase should
apply to all grades in each and every wage settlement.
If the Company insist that the increases should be
uniform, then it is only logical to expect that at
least extra benefits should also be uniform.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) On 8th April, 1986, the Company had a fire in its
premises. As a result of this fire the factory is only
working at 50% of its capacity, which has led to
extensive lay-offs and some redundancies. The Company
will also incur substantial losses in both 1986 and
1987. While the Company was insured for both fire and
consequential loss, this does not compensate the
Company for actual losses which have arisen. This
situation will continue until the factory becomes fully
operational again in August, 1987.
(ii) There has been an established Company practice of
applying the same increase to all sections of the
Company in each pay round. The Company cannot improve
on the terms offered in the settlements reached, as
these are considered reasonable in the light of the
current circumstances.
(iii) The Company's annual leave entitlement at 20 days is
well in line with employments far and wide. The 40
hour working week is the normal working week both
locally and nationally in manufacturing employments.
(iv) The fact that employees in the supervisory categories
have different conditions to those which apply to the
general categories is once again well established
practice within all types of employments and this
difference reflects the difference in their status
within the employment. The Company, therefore, are not
willing to grant supervisory conditions to the general
categories, nor are they prepared to make an improved
offer to the general categories on this basis, as it
would only lead to a repercussive claim from the
Supervisory Section.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Company's offer is fair
and reasonable and recommends that it should be accepted by the
workers concerned.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman.
3rd February, 1987.
M.D./J.C.