Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD875 Case Number: LCR11020 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BROOKS THOMAS LTD - and - ATGWU;SMAUI;MPGWU;NUWWM;ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of approximately 300 workers, for a wage increase under the 26th round and improved annual leave.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and taking into account the position of the Company, recommends as
follows:-
(a) a lump sum payment of #125 in respect of the period
from 1/10/86 to 30/6/87,
and
(b) an increase of #6 per week from the period 1/7/87 and
the agreement to terminate on 31/12/87,
(c) no increase in annual leave.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD875 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11020
CC861677 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11020
Parties: BROOKS THOMAS LIMITED
and
VARIOUS UNIONS
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately 300 workers, for a wage
increase under the 26th round and improved annual leave.
Background:
2. Following the expiry of the 25th round on 30th September,
1986, the Unions, on behalf of the workers concerned, served the
following 26th round claim on the Company:-
- a 15% increase for all employees for a twelve month
period commencing on 1st October, 1986 (min. of #25),
- an additional three days annual leave.
The Company's response was to make no offer for an increase in
wages as it felt it was unrealistic because of the difficult
trading situation. Agreement could not be reached locally and on
14th October, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation conference on 21st
November, 1986, the Company offered:-
(a) 1-10-86 to 30-6-87 (9 months) pay pause/#125 in lieu.
(b) 1-7-87 to 31-12-87 (6 months) increase of #4.50 p.w.
(c) 1-1-88 to 31-7-88 (7 months) increase of #4 p.w.
(d) 1-8-88 to 31-12-88 (5 months) increase of #4 p.w.
(e) No offer on holiday entitlement.
This offer was rejected by the Unions who put forward a counter
claim as follows:-
(a) 1-10-86 to 30-4-87 (7 months) increase of 5% (min. of
#10).
(b) 1-5-87 to 31-12-87 (8 months) increase of 5% (min. of
#10).
(c) Two additional days annual leave.
No settlement was possible at conciliation and on 7th January,
1987, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
6th February, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) The workers feel they lost out in an agreement with the
Company, arising out of redundancies, in 1985. There
has been no reduction in the volume of business and the
extra work has been divided among the existing staff,
operating at below normal staffing levels, leading to
increased pressure from management. All employees of
the Company work a lot harder with lesser numbers of
people involved in the day to day operations of the
Company.
(b) The Company claim that they have not made a profit
since 1972, with the exception of 1976. They also
claim that the parent Company Rauma Repola will not
supply further working capital and for that reason they
have to cut costs. However, just prior to Christmas
1986, the Company reached a franchise agreement with a
Tullamore firm and this will further increase the
working capital needs of the Company.
(c) It would not be in the workers interest to enter into
such a long term agreement as proposed by the Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The financial position of the Company at present is
extremely precarious and its position in the market
place is under constant pressure because of competition
from so many small companies whose rates of pay and
overheads are less than the Company's.
(ii) It is vital for the Company's survival and the
safeguarding of the 300 jobs involved that the pay
settlement includes relatively low wage increases and
that the agreement extends to the end of 1988.
(iii) Payment in excess of our offer could only be funded by
further cuts in our overheads and the Company's options
in that regard are very limited.
(iv) The financial situation of the Company (details
provided to the Court) justify a plea of inability to
pay. The Company has made a genuine effort to meet the
aspirations of the employees and the offer represents
the maximum to which the Company can go to meet these
aspirations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and taking into account the position of the Company, recommends as
follows:-
(a) a lump sum payment of #125 in respect of the period
from 1/10/86 to 30/6/87,
and
(b) an increase of #6 per week from the period 1/7/87 and
the agreement to terminate on 31/12/87,
(c) no increase in annual leave.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
19th February, 1987
B. O'N./J.C.