Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86861 Case Number: LCR11002 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WARNER LAMBERT LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of approximately thirty administrative grades, Q.C. grades and production supervisors, for a two-phased 5.5% wage increase plus two service days, under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is of the opinion that the terms of the 1980
agreement on service leave cannot properly be construed in the
manner suggested by the Union in support of its case. The Court
therefore recommends that the group of workers concerned accept
the terms proposed and accepted by the rest of the staff other
than the general operatives.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86861 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11002
CC861333 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11002
WARNER LAMBERT IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NO. 2 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately thirty administrative
grades, Q.C. grades and production supervisors, for a two-phased
5.5% wage increase plus two service days, under the 26th wage
round.
Background:
2. The Company employs approximately 190 people and is engaged in
the manufacture of chewing gum base, bulk pharmaceuticals and a
range of sterile surgical drapes.
3. The Irish Transport and General Workers' Union (Branches 2 and
12), the Federated Workers' Union of Ireland and the Amalgamated
Union of Engineering Workers (TASS) represent the workforce in the
Company. The 25th round expired in the Company on the 30th June,
1986, and discussions commenced on the 26th pay round on the 2nd
July. Subsequently the parties negotiated a gross salary increase
of:
4% for five months from 1st July, 1986,
2% for seven months from 1st December, 1986.
Negotiations broke down on the issue of discount in respect of
service leave and on the 7th August, 1986, the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a
conciliation conference, held on the 8th October, 1986, the Unions
agreed to recommend acceptance of the following proposals:
Workers represented by No. 12 Branch - ITGWU
(a) 8 hour shift workers.
(i) Pay
A 12 month agreement providing for a 4% increase from 1st
July, 1986, and a further 1.5% increase from 1st November,
1986.
(ii) Service Leave
The introduction of service leave as follows:-
- more than 2 years' service - 1 day
- more than 5 years' service - an additional day (2
days in all)
(b) 12 hour shift workers
(i) Pay
As in paragraph (a)(i) above.
(ii) Service Leave
The introduction of service leave as follows:-
- more than 2 years' service 12 hours leave
- more than 5 years' service 16 hours leave
*(subject to the understanding that this leave will
include one complete shift)
Workers represented by No. 2 Branch ITGWU, FWUI and TASS
Pay
A twelve month agreement providing for a 4% increase
from the 1st July, 1986 and a further 2.4% increase from
1st November, 1986.
These proposals were subsequently endorsed by the FWUI and Tass
but were rejected by the ITGWU (No. 2 branch) which sought the
terms awarded to the ITGWU (No. 12 branch). This was rejected by
the Company. The basis for the Union's claim is that in 1980 it
concluded an agreement with Management on a defined level of
computerisation in return for additional service holidays and that
these holidays were to be and to remain "over and above the
standard holiday entitlement.' Local level discussions failed to
resolve the dispute and on the 20th October, 1986, the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 8th December,
1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) It was the Union's belief, when the agreement on the
introduction of computerisation was finalised in 1980,
that additional leave or service leave would accrue to
all employees at some time in the future. For that
specific reason it insisted that the phrase 'over and
above the standard holiday entitlement' be inserted.
For Management to now renege on this agreement is wrong
and will, if successful, give rise to other serious
industrial relations problems.
(b) It should be borne in mind by the Court that extra
leave for most of the claimants is self financing. For
the most part, the administrative grades cover for one
another on the more essential aspects of their jobs
with any backlog being cleared on the return to work.
The Union acknowledges that this approach is not
possible for a small number engaged in production and
that therefore extra costs may be entailed.
(c) In the context of a wage round, it is seldom one
encounters two different offers being made available to
staff in the one Company. Even if both offers were
equally matched there is the distinct possibility that
they would be perceived by some staff to be
discriminatory and therefore give rise to
dissatisfaction. In terms of the claimants, the
Company's approach has in fact done just this as there
is a serious level of discontent arising from the
different offers and the perceived attempt by
Management not to honour the 1980 agreement.
(d) The Court is requested to recommend that a pay increase
of 5.5% and two days' leave be conceded to the
claimants which will maintain equals under the pay
round and safeguard the 1980 agreement.
Company's argument:
5. (i) The current service leave, in terms of both entitlement
and phasing, applicable to the claimants exceeds the
norm for industry generally. Even where service leave
arrangements exist, five days is usually granted not
earlier than 25 years. The Company believes that an
extension is not warranted nor can it be justified when
comparisons are made with general norms.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is of the opinion that the terms of the 1980
agreement on service leave cannot properly be construed in the
manner suggested by the Union in support of its case. The Court
therefore recommends that the group of workers concerned accept
the terms proposed and accepted by the rest of the staff other
than the general operatives.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
9th February, 1987.
D.H./J.C.