Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86822 Case Number: LCR10878 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SMURFIT PLASTICS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an increase in pay under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court recommends
that the Company amends its offer as follows:-
3% with effect from 1st April, 1986.
3% with effect from 1st December, 1986.
4% with effect from 1st August, 1987.
in respect of an agreement to last for 2 years and that the
amended offer be accepted by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86822 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10878
CC861535 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10878
Parties: SMURFIT PLASTICS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for an increase in pay under the 26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company employs approximately 40 people in the manufacture
of heavy duty polythene sacks, mainly for the fertiliser and solid
fuel trades, film on reel, high and low density polyethylene
liners and bags. The claim for a 26th wage round increase is in
respect of approximately 20 workers, members of the Union. The
25th wage round agreement expired in March, 1986. The Company and
the Union met in June, 1986 to discuss a claim for an increase in
wages under the 26th wage round and it was agreed that discussions
would be deferred. A further meeting took place in September,
1986, at which the Company made an offer of a six month pay pause
followed by an increase of 3% for the balance of 12 months. This
offer was rejected by the Union. Both sides agreed that a 24
month agreement was a possibility but agreement could not be
reached regarding percentages. The Union were seeking at least
11% in two phases. The matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 17th September, 1986. A
conciliation conference was held on 25th September, 1986 and 2nd
October, 1986. At the resumed conciliation conference the Company
put forward the following proposals.
12 month agreement or 24 month agreement
3 month pay pause 3 month pay pause
4% for nine months 4% for nine months
2% for six months
2% for six months
The proposals were rejected by the Union and both parties agreed
to refer the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Waterford on
26th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The offer made by the Company is unacceptable because
it is less than the local norm. The current trend
seems to be in the region of 6% for 12 months.
(b) The workers give good co-operation and flexibility and
this should be reflected in an acceptable pay increase.
(c) The workers find the question of a pay pause to be
totally unacceptable.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company is operating on low profit margins due to
changing trends in the market place, a lower demand for
products and increased competition from imports at
unrealistic prices.
(b) The Company has introduced light gauge film extrusion
and bag making facilities in an effort to avert the
introduction of short-time working.
(c) Since the offer was made the financial position of the
Company has worsened. However the co-operation and
flexibility of the workforce is recognised by the
Company. The Court is asked to recommend along the
lines of the second option as it is considered
reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court recommends
that the Company amends its offer as follows:-
3% with effect from 1st April, 1986.
3% with effect from 1st December, 1986.
4% with effect from 1st August, 1987.
in respect of an agreement to last for 2 years and that the
amended offer be accepted by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman.
7th January, 1987.
M.D./J.C.