Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86999 Case Number: LCR11001 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CONNICK, COOPER & O'ROURKE - and - IDATU |
Claims, on behalf of ten clerical and administrative workers, for (a) wage increase under the 26th wage round, (b) introduction of an incremental salary structure and (c) a bonus scheme.
Recommendation:
13. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends as follows:
(a) Salary increase:
The Court does not find any clear relationship between
salary increases and increases granted to yard staff.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the
Employer's offer be amended to provide:
(i) An increase of 4% with effect from 1st
September, 1986.
(ii) A further increase of 4% with effect from 1st
March, 1987, in respect of an agreement of
fifteen months duration, and that the offer as
amended be accepted by the workers concerned.
(b) Introduction of an incremental salary scale:
The Court does not consider the immediate introduction
of an incremental salary structure to be necessary, and
does not therefore recommend concession of this claim.
(c) Introduction of a bonus scheme:
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for the introduction of a bonus scheme.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86999 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11001
CC861732 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11001
Parties: CONNICK COOPER AND O'ROURKE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claims, on behalf of ten clerical and administrative workers,
for (a) wage increase under the 26th wage round, (b) introduction
of an incremental salary structure and (c) a bonus scheme.
General Background:
2. The Company, which is located in Dundalk, is involved in the
importation and distribution of coal and grain.
3. The workers concerned joined the Union in late 1985 and, on
the 20th August, 1986, the Union served a three point claim on the
Company for the following:
(a) a substantial increase in existing wages with effect
from the termination of the 25th wage round (31st
August, 1986),
(b) the introduction of an incremental salary structure,
(c) a bonus scheme.
At a meeting on the 17th September, 1986, Management rejected
points (b) and (c) and offered a wage increase of 4% in one phase.
This was unacceptable to the Union and as local discussions failed
to resolve the matter, it was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 21st October, 1986. No progress was
made at a conciliation conference held on the 10th November.
Following this conference, the workers concerned balloted for
strike action and pickets were placed on the Company's premises on
the 24th November. Workers who were members of the two other
unions in the Company refused to pass the pickets which resulted
in a total shut down of the coal yard and the grain storage. A
second conciliation conference was held on the 28th November at
which the Company offered an interim increase of 4% with the other
issues being referred to a full Court hearing. This was rejected
by the Union. Following the intervention of the Court's
Industrial Relations Officer, normal working was resumed on the
15th December, and a third conciliation conference was held on the
17th December. No further progress was made and on the 18th
December the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
the 5th January, 1987.
Claim (a) - wage increase
Background:
4. The Union sought to secure a percentage increase in wages in
line with that which Management had already paid to the members of
the two other unions in the Company (5% for ten months followed by
a further 5% five months).
Union's arguments:
5. (a) The Union fails to understand how the Company can
justify treating the claimants less favourably than
other sections of the workforce or substantiate its
claim of being unable to pay a like percentage to
everybody.
(b) At no stage in the negotiations did the Company claim
inability to pay but simply stated that the trading
position had changed over the summer months. The
Union contends that there is nothing unusual in this
and claims that the tonnage figures for the summer
months are well in line with those which applied during
1985. Trade in the coal business, by its nature, falls
during the summer months but at no stage was the
Company suffering a trading loss.
(c) The Company's refusal to negotiate and its insistence
that the full case should be adjudicated on by the
Labour Court was seen by the workers concerned as a
simple but very serious case of vindictiveness on the
part of local management who apparently perceived the
decision of the staff to join the Union as a personal
affront.
Company's arguments:
6. (i) Competition in the coal importation sector is intense
and it is essential that the Company does not do
anything that might further weaken its position in the
marketplace. This marketplace is close to Northern
Ireland and the Company must compete with companies
from there. These companies have three clear
advantages in that (a) they can import in greater
quantity and thereby pay #6/#8 per ton less; (b) there
is no V.A.T. on coal in Northern Ireland (currently 10%
in the Republic); (c) their costs are lower, especially
in the areas of labour.
(ii) The port of Dundalk can only take ships up to a maximum
of 2,700 tons which means imports are confined to
Polish and the dearer English coal. Other neighbouring
ports such as Greenore can take ships up to 8,500 tons
which gives them access to cheaper American coal.
(iii) Labour costs amount to 60/70% of overall costs,
therefore any increase in wages would have a
significant effect on the Company's overall competitive
position. In addition, the workers salaries are very
high compared to those applying to many competitors
(details supplied to the Court).
(iv) The only way of recouping increased costs is to either
increase sales or price. In the current circumstances
it is not practical to consider increasing sales as
1986 figures were approximately 8.5% down on 1985
figures. The selling price of coal has decreased in
order to maintain customers and a new deal has been
completed with the bell trade for a #4.50 price
decrease. This has resulted in reducing the gross
margin by over 40% (details supplied to the Court).
(v) The coal trade is a service business. Customers must
be supplied when they need it otherwise they will go
elsewhere to get coal. There is no guarantee that
customers will ever return when their supply has been
interrupted. The exact cost and damage done by the
recent three-week strike will not be known for some
time but it is certain that there will be some future
loss.
Claim (b) - introduction of an incremental salary structure
Background:
7. Substantial differences exist in the rates of pay of the
workers (details supplied to the Court) and the Union proposed the
introduction of an incremental scale, with an agreed minimum and
maximum, on which existing staff members could be assimilated at
agreed points.
Union's arguments:
8. (a) The duties and functions of the majority of the
workers would normally be accommodated within a
singular clerical grade, as their duties would require
an equal level of expertise, dexterity, mental and
physical effort. Any differences occasioned by
variations in their length of service and/or experience
would normally be catered for by and within an
incremental structure. However, the Company has
rejected the claim as it contends that the workers
concerned are adequately compensated for the jobs they
perform.
(b) The Union is agreeable to having the workers
assimilated on to an incremental scale on a phased
basis if this is necessary.
(c) The Company has shown no willingness to negotiate on
this issue and does not want to depart from the system
it has operated for years of dealing with each worker
individually and on an ad hoc basis. It is precisely
this system that has led to the present anomalies.
Company's argument:
9. (i) The Company, in response to the Union's claim has
agreed to examine any or all cases which the Union
presented relating to individual cases of anomaly that
exist and to adjust salaries if necessary.
Claim (c) - introduction of a bonus scheme
Background:
10. There is a bonus scheme in operation within the Company,
applicable to other union members which provides for benefits in
two distinct ways.
(a) A tonnage payment in respect of every ton of coal
carried across the weigh-bridge, which is paid into a
retirement fund and payable on retirement to each
worker and,
(b) A bonus on every cargo of coal imported whether through
the Dundalk port or elsewhere. A similar bonus is paid
in respect of grain discharged at Dundalk port. This
part of the bonus is payable on a weekly basis and
amounts to approximately #500 per year to each worker.
Union's arguments:
11. (a) The Union has sought to reach agreement on some type of
bonus scheme which would reflect the increased effort
required by the clerical/administrative staff in
dealing with an ever increasing volume of business
(particularly since the Company's involvement in grain
discharge and storage).
(b) The level of earnings of the manual staff exceeds, in
many cases, those of the workers concerned because of
built-in overtime arrangements and their bonus scheme.
Company's arguments:
12. (i) The Company rejects this claim on the basis that it is
not normal for clerical workers to have such a scheme
and in addition the workers concerned are already fully
compensated in their high salaries.
RECOMMENDATION:
13. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends as follows:
(a) Salary increase:
The Court does not find any clear relationship between
salary increases and increases granted to yard staff.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the
Employer's offer be amended to provide:
(i) An increase of 4% with effect from 1st
September, 1986.
(ii) A further increase of 4% with effect from 1st
March, 1987, in respect of an agreement of
fifteen months duration, and that the offer as
amended be accepted by the workers concerned.
(b) Introduction of an incremental salary scale:
The Court does not consider the immediate introduction
of an incremental salary structure to be necessary, and
does not therefore recommend concession of this claim.
(c) Introduction of a bonus scheme:
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for the introduction of a bonus scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
9th February, 1987. Deputy Chairman.
D.H./J.C.