Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86901 Case Number: LCR10968 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DAVID TAYLOR LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for a wage increase under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that the Company offer and the Union
accepts an increase of 6% with effect from 1st May, 1986 and a
lumpsum of #150 payable on acceptance of this recommendation. The
agreement to be for a period of 12 months.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86901 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10968
CC861458 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10968
Parties: DAVID TAYLOR LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for a wage increase under the 26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is based in Mountmellick Co Laois where it
manufactures and supplies animal feed supplements. It employs six
workers on a full-time basis, including the Managing Director.
This claim concerns three Production workers and one Driver
employed by the Company. The 25th wage round terminated for the
workers on 30th April, 1986. Their present weekly basic rate of
pay is #134.38. The Union claimed a 15% wage increase over twelve
months, the installation of a second extractor, an increase of #1
to the Driver's #3 lunch allowance and the introduction of a #3
tea allowance when the Driver works after 7.30 p.m. The Company
rejected the claim and offered a 6% wage increase in two phases
over twelve months with a tea-allowance of #1.50 for the Driver
for work after 7.30 p.m. This offer was rejected by the Union.
3. No agreement was reached at local level and on 8th September
1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 16th October,
1986 which was the earliest date suitable to both parties.
However, no agreement was reached. The Union subsequently
modified its claim to an 8% increase in one phase over twelve
months. The Company then offered a 6% increase over twelve months
and a #100 lump sum ex gratia net payment. The workers rejected
this offer.
4. On 19th November, 1986 the case was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 16th December, 1986 in Portlaoise.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The workers' basic rate of pay is very low. They have
very little opportunity to enhance their earnings
through overtime and are not paid any bonus.
(ii) The Company acknowledges that it has had a very good
year. The bad summer and autumn should have helped the
Company's marketing position.
(iii) Working conditions are primitive although the Company
has said it is willing to make improvements.
(iv) The Company's operation is a comprehensive facility
requiring a high degree of flexibility.
(v) In the cirucmstances the Union's claim for an 8% wage
increase is justified and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The workers have a good rate of pay when account is
taken of the short time the Company is in existence and
the level of pay generally in the animal feed industry.
The Company has recently introduced a non-contributory
pension scheme. There is, therefore, no justification
for the high level of wage increase claimed by the
Union.
(b) The Company made a reasonable offer and tried to secure
a settlement. It cannot, however, concede a wage
increase as high as last year's 10.50% increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court recommends that the Company offer and the Union
accepts an increase of 6% with effect from 1st May, 1986 and a
lumpsum of #150 payable on acceptance of this recommendation. The
agreement to be for a period of 12 months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
11th February, 1987 --------------
T O'M/U.S. Chairman