Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86790 Case Number: LCR10882 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COATS PATONS LTD - and - IDATU |
Claims by the Union as follows:- (a) New and improved pay scales for twelve warehouse staff, (b) Negotiation on the bonus scheme, (c) New and improved rates of pay for four clerical staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Company has agreed to discussion
with the Union on the question of the bonus scheme which was item
(b) of the claim and accordingly does not make any recommendation
on this item.
With regard to the other two elements in the claim, the Court
recommends as follows:-
(1) Warehouse Workers
The Court notes that the Company's warehouse rates have
traditionally been increased by the terms of the Dublin Drapery
Trade agreements and that the Union has been party to this
arrangement. This is an argument for the retention of this link
nevertheless it should not preclude the advancement of an
alternative view by the Trade Union. Accordingly the Court
recommends that this matter be the subject of discussions between
the parties.
(2) Clerical Rates of Pay
As the Company indicated at the hearing that it is prepared to
inform the Union of the details of the job evaluation scheme it
operates, the Court recommends that the Union re-assess its
position when in receipt of this information.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86790 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10882
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10882
PARTIES: COATS PATONS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claims by the Union as follows:-
(a) New and improved pay scales for twelve warehouse staff,
(b) Negotiation on the bonus scheme,
(c) New and improved rates of pay for four clerical staff.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the warehousing and distribution of
products to the retail and wholesale drapery and related trades.
In February, 1986 the Union served a claim on the Company for new
and improved rates of pay for warehouse and clerical staff and for
negotiations on the bonus scheme. Local level discussions took
place and the Company informed the Union that a review of each
clerical worker's position on the existing scales would be
undertaken. This was not acceptable to the Union, nor was any
agreement reached in relation to the bonus scheme, (which was
introduced by the Company in November, 1985,) or the claim for new
and improved rates for warehouse staff. The matters were referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 2nd July, 1986
and a conciliation conference was held on 28th August, 1986. No
agreement being reached, the matters were referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The hearing took
place on 27th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Company's warehouse rates have traditionally been
increased by the terms of the Dublin Drapery Trade
agreement on pay and a warehouse rate has been carried
forward for mainly historical reasons. That agreement
(copy supplied to the Court), does not cater for
warehouse workers and the Union is seeking negotiations
outside the terms of this agreement. None of the other
elements in this agreement apply to this Company so it
is not appropriate. The Company's existing warehouse
wages are seriously out of line with other warehouse
rates. (Details supplied).
(b) The Company introduced its own bonus scheme, devised by
the employer, implemented by the employer and operated
by the employer without any negotiation despite many
requests by the Union. The Union is simply seeking
negotiations on this issue.
(c) The clerical workers in this employment are not paid in
accordance with the rates contained in the Dublin
Drapery Trade Agreement. The existing rates were not
negotiated by this Union, the workers are not aware of
the different scales in existence and the proposed
review by the Company is unacceptable. The Union
outlined in the Court some existing rates and is
seeking negotiations with the Company in this regard.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The historical pattern within the Company has been that
the Union negotiated rates of increase in the Dublin
and Dun Laoghaire Drapery, Footwear and Allied Trades
and such rates of increase were claimed on behalf of
Union members in the Company. The rates of pay on
which such increases have been paid in the past were
rates negotiated by the Union on behalf of its members
in the Company. Throughout each pay round and without
exception, the Union claimed the Dublin Drapery Trade
increases for its members, and these were conceded. It
is not accepted that after a number of decades of
applying the logical and appropriate rates of pay and
of increase, that the Union should attempt to change
the method and criteria for bargaining pay in respect
of the warehouse staff. Increases of 3% from 1st July,
1986, followed by a further 3% from 1st February, 1987
have been agreed for the Dublin and Dun Laoghaire
Drapery Trade and in normal circumstances would apply
to the rates of the employees covered by this claim.
(b) A copy of the Warehouse Productivity Bonus Scheme which
was established in November, 1985 was supplied to the
Court. The matter was discussed in detail internally
between management and staff and has been operative
since that date. Though the Union have complained that
management did not involve it throughout these
negotiations no question on the issue of the bonus
scheme was raised by the Union until early 1986 when
the bonus had been in operation for a period of time.
It is management's view that any bonus system should be
given an appropriate period to prove itself to be
effective. A productivity scheme should produce
benefit for the Company and customer in addition to
producing benefit for the staff. This productivity
bonus has earned an average of #13.24 per week for each
employee covered by the scheme.
The Union's claim that the productivity scheme should
apply to employees who are not in fact contributing
directly to production/productivity has been rejected
by management.
It is accepted by management that there will be a
necessity to re-negotiate this scheme in the near
future as the two component companies which make up
Coats Patons (Ireland) Limited have recently taken a
decision to separate. This will necessitate the
physical separation of the respective products in the
warehouse and the division of staff into groups which
did not heretofore apply. This change has taken place
to accommodate the fact that the computers of the two
separate companies are not compatible and it is
necessary for the proper administration of the business
that these physical moves have been made. Such moves
do not affect the continuity of service and any other
entitlements linked thereto in respect of each member
of staff. Against that background it would be
necessary to examine the application of the bonus
scheme, and the Company intend to do so, together with
the Union, in the near future.
(c) The clerical rates of pay which apply in the Company
are the result of ongoing job evaluation exercises
which have taken place over a lengthy period of time.
(Details of salary scales were supplied to the Court).
Notwithstanding the fact that the clerical staff were
not covered by Union membership up to the recent past,
the Company always applied the Drapery Trade negotiated
levels of increase to the rates of pay of the clerical
staff in the Company. These scales were due for an
increase from 1st July, 1986 and 1st February, 1987 but
such increases have been deferred as this matter was in
the course of discussion with the trade union.
(d) The latest review and examination of the jobs of the
clerical staff in the context of the existing job
evaluation scheme took place in May, 1986. This review
did result in the grading of a number of the clerical
staff being adjusted, and it would be the intention
that as a matter of routine, each clerical job would be
evaluated on an ongoing basis and if regrading is
appropriate, then that will be done.
(e) The rates of pay of both categories covered by the
claims have developed in a logical fashion which in the
case of the warehouse staff was supported and
influenced by trade union negotiations over a very
lengthy period. Those rates have now been enhanced by
bonus earnings. Insofar as the clerical scales are
concerned, job evaluation schemes have been in
existence for many years throughout the Company, and
all the Irish levels of cost-of-living/pay round
increases to the scales.
(f) A comparison between the rates of pay which apply to
warehouse staff within the Company in Ireland and in
the U.K. indicates that the rates of pay in Ireland are
more than 30% higher than those in the U.K. It is
essential that the Irish operation remains cost
effective. Already many companies which in the past
distributed their products through warehouses in
Ireland have closed up that type of operation, which is
quite labour intensive. The alternative means of
distribution is that the Irish market, which is
relatively small, be supplied direct from the U.K.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the Company has agreed to discussion
with the Union on the question of the bonus scheme which was item
(b) of the claim and accordingly does not make any recommendation
on this item.
With regard to the other two elements in the claim, the Court
recommends as follows:-
(1) Warehouse Workers
The Court notes that the Company's warehouse rates have
traditionally been increased by the terms of the Dublin Drapery
Trade agreements and that the Union has been party to this
arrangement. This is an argument for the retention of this link
nevertheless it should not preclude the advancement of an
alternative view by the Trade Union. Accordingly the Court
recommends that this matter be the subject of discussions between
the parties.
(2) Clerical Rates of Pay
As the Company indicated at the hearing that it is prepared to
inform the Union of the details of the job evaluation scheme it
operates, the Court recommends that the Union re-assess its
position when in receipt of this information.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__12th__January,__1987. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman