Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86832 Case Number: LCR10901 Section / Act: S67 Parties: VIDEPRO - and - ITGWU |
Claims on behalf of 52 production operatives in respect of the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union should accept the Company's
offer (made at the Court hearing) of a 26th round wage increase of
6% for twelve months commencing on 1st April, 1986.
6. The Court also recommends that the Company should concede the
union's claim for 1 day's paid compassionate leave in respect of
the death of grand parents and in-laws.
7. The Court recommends that the parties should discuss in the
context of the next wage round the question of the introduction of
a scheme of service compensation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86832 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10901
CC86951 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10901
PARTIES: VIDEOPRO INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of 52 production operatives in respect of the
26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and
sale of video data projectors and employs a total of 78 workers.
3. The terms of the 25th wage round expired for the workers
concerned on 31st March, 1986. Their current basic rate of pay is
#130.08 per week. The Union, on behalf of the workers, served the
following claims on the Company in respect of the 26th wage
round:-
(a) 12% increase in basic pay for 12 months from 1st
April, 1986
(b) increase in annual leave
(c) one day's paid compassionate leave in the event of
the death of a grand-parent or parent-in-law
(d) fifteen minutes paid time off to go to the bank
with wage cheque
(e) introduction of a service incremental scale.
The Company rejected the claims and as no agreement could be
reached at local level the matter was referred, on 3rd June, 1986,
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a
conciliation conference, held on 17th June, 1986, no progress was
made and it was agreed that the claim be referred back again to
local level for further discussions. At these discussions the
Union withdrew its claim in respect of additional annual leave and
suggested the combination of the claims on basic pay and service
increment to give an overall increase in pay of 12%. The Union
also suggested the replacing of the claim for time off to go to
the bank with a claim for the provision of a bus by the Company to
transport the workers to and from the bank following the proposed
move to a new Company premises. This was rejected by the Company
which in turn responded to the Union's claims as follows:-
(a) pay increase in line with the generally agreed
national norm under the 26th wage round
(b) compassionate leave for in-laws and grand parents
to be decided on the merits of each individual case
(c) no offer on additional time off to go to the bank
on the basis that the proposed move to a new
location had been shelved
(d) service incremental scale claim rejected.
This was rejected by the Union and the matter was referred back to
conciliation. At a further conciliation conference, held on 17th
October, 1986, the Union's final position was 8% increase in basic
pay for 12 months plus service increments with the other 2 claims
remaining the same. The Company's final position was an offer of:
(i) a 4% increase in basic pay for 12 months;
(ii) sympathetic consideration of any case of death in the
family and;
(iii) should a move to new premises be made in the future,
discussion of suitable arrangements to take place in
advance with the Union.
This was unacceptable to the Union and the matter was then
referred by the parties to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 4th
December, 1986. At the Court hearing the Company made an improved
offer on pay to provide for a 6% increase for 12 months.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The increase in pay sought by the Union is necessary
to take account of increases in the cost of living and
the effects of direct and indirect taxation on
disposable incomes.
(ii) Pay settlements to date under the 26th wage round
average at 6.04% over a 12 month period. Also, the
Labour Court has recommended increases of 6% in
respect of claims under the 26th wage round in a
number of recent Recommendations (details supplied to
the Court).
(iii) The current basic rates of pay in the Company are
inadequate and out of line with those obtaining in
other comparable employments within the
electronics/electrical assembly industry (details
supplied to the Court). Furthermore, the workers have
no other means of enhancing their earnings outside
their basic pay and some overtime on occasions, nor do
any fringe benefits apply to them.
(iv) The Company is an expanding and profitable concern and
can well afford to meet the workers' demands for a
reasonable wage. In this respect, a recent press
report points to the success of the Company in one of
the most highly profitable and expanding industries
today.
(v) Concession of the Union's claims in relation to pay
would result in the workers receiving just #5 above
the pre 26th wage round average rate in the industry.
(vi) Concession of the claim in relation to paid leave in
the event of the death of a grand-parent or
parent-in-law would bring the Company into line, in
this regard, with other good employments where this
condition is already well established (details
supplied to the Court).
(vii) No worker should lose pay through the attendance at
the funeral of a relative.
(viii) Should the Company move to the proposed new premises
in Finglas the nearest bank would be approximately a
20 minutes walk away. As an alternative to paid time
off the Union is seeking the supply of a bus by the
Company to prevent the obvious delays which would
arise travelling to and from the bank.
(ix) The cost to the Company of conceding this claim would
be minimal, yet the Company has rejected it and has
suggested as an alternative payment of wages by direct
transfer. This is not acceptable to the workers.
(x) While the type of service increment scheme claimed by
the Union is not generally available in electronic
assembly employments nevertheless it is a fast growing
trend within the industry.
(x) Service increments are necessary in an employment of
this nature because of the length of time it takes a
worker to learn the wide range of skills associated
with the electronics business. It follows therefore,
that the more service workers have with the Company
the greater is their wealth of knowledge, experience
and skills and accordingly, the more valuable they are
to the Company. However, this is not reflected in the
workers' rate of pay or in any form of service award.
(xii) The cost of conceding this claim is small, bearing in
mind the low wages currently being paid, and the much
greater cost to the Company of losing its most
experienced workers. This claim is viewed by the
workers as being fundamental to improving pay and
rewarding service.
(xiii) Despite seven months of discussions on the Union's
claims the Company has not really changed its position
in contrast to the Union which has amended its
position substantially during this time. It seems
that the Company, despite it being a profitable and
expanding concern, is intent on maintaining low wages
and poor working conditions. Concession of the
Union's claims would be of minimal cost to the Company
and failure to do so could affect future good
industrial relations in the Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company buys and sells in sterling and United
States dollars. Over the last year this has had the
effect of the Company receiving less for its products
and in some areas costing it more to buy in raw
materials.
(b) The Company's competitors have not increased prices in
the last three years. This has resulted in the
Company, in order to compete internationally, having
to reduce its prices in some countries.
(c) The Company is a small concern competing with the
giants of the electronic industry on an international
basis and has for the last six months, experienced
severe trading difficulties. At present the Company
is struggling to achieve the position it occupied in
May, 1985.
(d) Despite the position of the Company as outlined above
it is still prepared to implement its offer as
outlined at conciliation and in fact is now prepared
to increase to 6% its offer on pay. This is a fair
and reasonable offer and should be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union should accept the Company's
offer (made at the Court hearing) of a 26th round wage increase of
6% for twelve months commencing on 1st April, 1986.
6. The Court also recommends that the Company should concede the
union's claim for 1 day's paid compassionate leave in respect of
the death of grand parents and in-laws.
7. The Court recommends that the parties should discuss in the
context of the next wage round the question of the introduction of
a scheme of service compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman