Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86835 Case Number: LCR10976 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KERSTEN HUNIK - and - MPGWU |
Claim on behalf of 3 warehousemen for parity of pay with Dublin Cargo Handling groupage operation, in respect of the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Company should renew its offer of a
26th Round wage increase of 6% effective from 1st May, 1986 for
twelve months and that the union should accept this offer. The
Court does not recommend concession of the union's claim for
relativity with Dublin Cargo Handling.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86835 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10976
CC861298 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10976
PARTIES: KERSTEN HUNIK (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 3 warehousemen for parity of pay with
Dublin Cargo Handling groupage operation, in respect of the 26th
wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is part of an international freight forwarding/
transport business with operations in Ireland and employs 3
warehousemen. The terms of the 25th wage round expired for the
workers at the end of April, 1986, their current rates of pay per
week are approximately #170.00 (including payment for handling
dangerous cargo plus bonus). In June, 1986, the Union, on behalf
of the workers concerned, served a claim on the Company for parity
of pay with Dublin Cargo Handling groupage operation. The Company
rejected this claim and at local level made an offer in respect of
the 26th wage round of a 3% increase for a twelve month period.
This was unacceptable to the Union and the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 13th October, 1986, at which no agreement
could be reached. Subsequently the Company made an offer of 6%
for a twelve month period on the basis that this offer would be
withdrawn if rejected. The Union rejected this offer and on 24th
October, 1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 18th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The original job description of the workers concerned
was to load and unload transport. Increase in tonnage
throughput in the meantime has meant that the workload
has increased greatly (a considerable amount
of overtime is worked) and the workers are required to
carry out other duties (details supplied to the
Court). A great deal of flexibility is therefore
required.
(ii) A comparable operation in Dublin Cargo Handling would
involve more individual workers and consequently
higher wage costs. The Company handles the same type
of traffic as Dublin Cargo Handling and it is probable
that the Company took the business away from Dublin
Cargo Handling when Inland Customs Clearance Depots
were set up by the Government in 1978.
(iii) The clerical workers employed by the Company have
established relativity with the workers here
concerned, arising from Labour Court Recommendation
No. 10379 (20th March, 1986). Those workers currently
earn approximately #40 more per week based on a 40
hour week. The converse of that relativity
established must be that the workers here concerned
have also established a relativity claim. Acceptance
of the 6% increase offered by the Company would
increase the differential to #43 per 40 hour week.
(iv) Workers in other companies (including Dublin Cargo
Handling) using comparable skills receive higher rates
of pay (details supplied to the Court).
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company is operating in a business which has been
severely affected by the recession. No profits have
been made in 9 years and the Company is being carried
by its international parent company. It is essential
that the Company becomes profitable as soon as
possible.
(b) The Company is privately owned and profit orientated
and should not be compared to Dublin Cargo Handling
which is a different operation and also differs
significantly in terms of its corporate structure and
funding arrangements. The current rates of pay of the
workers, who are on a 38 3/4 hour week, compare
favourably with those in comparable warehousing
operations (details supplied to the Court), and
reflect the performance of the workers. The levels of
productivity and flexibility have existed for a long
time. The level of flexibility is essential in a
small warehouse operation and in fact present
productivity levels are lower as there has been a
decline of 10% in volume throughput in the last six
month period.
(c) Substantial pay increases were given in the last two
wage rounds. In the 24th wage round a 7% increase was
applied and a bonus scheme was extended to these
workers; in the 25th wage round a 7.50% increase was
given and a weekly special payment of #6.50 for
handling dangerous cargo was introduced. The latter
payment was extended to the clerical workers arising
from Labour Court Recommendation No. 10379 (20th
March, 1986), resulting in a payroll increase in
excess of 12% for all workers. The Company cannot
afford further excessive pay increases and the union
representing clerical workers has indicated that it
will put in a claim for the extension of any payment
to the workers here concerned to the clerical workers.
(The offer of 6% in respect of the 26th wage round was
accepted by the clerical workers).
(d) Recently there has been an obvious trend away from
direct warehousing and into the sub-contracting of
operations, this is obvious even within the Company's
European network. The Company would not wish to see
such a development, but in a serious loss-making
situation such trends cannot be ignored.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Company should renew its offer of a
26th Round wage increase of 6% effective from 1st May, 1986 for
twelve months and that the union should accept this offer. The
Court does not recommend concession of the union's claim for
relativity with Dublin Cargo Handling.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd February, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman