Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86919 Case Number: LCR10909 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ADVANCE TYRE CO. LTD - and - ITGWU |
Implementation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9855.
Recommendation:
7. The Court made its recommendation in accordance with the facts
as presented to it. In the light of the severe economic
circumstances facing the industry the Court recommends that the
#10 increase be applied to the scales of all the Claimants
with effect from 1st May, 1986.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD 86919 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10909
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10909
Parties: ADVANCE TYRE COMPANY LTD
(Represetned by the Federated Workers Union of Ireland)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Implementation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9855.
Background:
2. On 25th March, 1985, a Labour Court hearing took place in
Dublin between the above parties. The claim which was before the
the Court was for revised pay scales for twenty clerical staff.
The Union contended that the pay scales of the clerical workers
were out of line with generally established standards and with the
scales in the parent company. The Company for its part, denied
that the scales were out of line with comparable employments, and
stated that it was experiencing financial difficulties. The
following recommendation, signed on 23rd July, 1985, was issued by
the Labour Court.
"The Court accepts that the salary scales are low by
comparison with industry generally and recommends that in
addition to the offer under the 24th Round the salaries of
the claimants be increased by #10 per week with effect from
1st August, 1985."
3. The Union accepted the recommendation and sought
implementation of the increase from the due date. At local
meetings the Company indicated that it was not in a position to
pay the increase and sought a deferment. Eventually, the Company
offered to pay #10 per week to head office staff with effect from
1st May, 1986, but other (depot) staff would only receive an
increase to the extent that it was necessary to top up payments
received under a bonus scheme which does not apply to head office
staff (details with Court). This proposal was not acceptable to
the Union as it argued that the Labour Court Recommendation had
made no distinction between head office and depot staff and it saw
no need to raise the question of the application of the
recommendation. The Company argument was that due to a
misunderstanding the sides were arguing two different cases at the
Labour Court hearing held on 25th March, 1985, i.e. the Company
was under the impression that only head office staff were
concerned in the claim, while the Union was pressing a claim on
behalf of all clerical staff. As a consequence of this, the
Company had failed to draw the Court's attention to the fact that
depot clerical staff received an additional payment over and above
that of head quarters staff.
4. No agreement could be reached at local level and on 28th
October, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 20th
November, 1986. No progress was made at this conference, and
accordingly the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 12th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) The Labour Court recommended an increase of #10 per
week for all clerical workers. The Company's offer
would only benefit some of the workers and, indeed,
those depot staff who would benefit most from the
Company offer are staff who are not members of the
Union.
(b) The implementation date recommended by the Court was
August 1st, 1985. The implementation date offered by
the Company was May 1st, 1986.
(c) The Labour Recovery Scheme is essentially a
Productivity Bonus and varies considerably from one
depot to another, depending on the volume of business
in the particular depot. It would be unfair on the
members in the more active depots to have this Bonus
offset against the salary increase. Furthermore, it
would create anomalies, vis-a-vis salary scales.
(d) The question of offsetting the bonus against salary
increases was not raised by the Company until April
this year. At no stage, during the processing of the
original claim did the Company raise the issue of the
bonus. It did not do so at conciliation or at the
Labour Court hearing, nor did it do so in the immediate
aftermath of the Labour Court Recommendation.
(e) For the Company to implement the Recommendation, in the
way it proposes, would create enormous divisions
between Depot staff and Head office staff. This would
be undesirable from an industrial relations and a
Company Management point of view, and is certainly not
justified by the small amount of money involved.
(f) The Union regards the Company's offer of 28th April to
be unacceptable and is asking the Court to recommend
implementation of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9855
in full.
Company's arguments:
6. (i) The scales at Head Office and the depots are similar,
but at the time of the hearing the Court was unaware
that many of the depot clerical workers were already in
receipt of the extra #10 recommended by the Court.
(ii) Due to very adverse trading losses, the company
requested that the matter be deferred into 1987 and
when the matter arose for discussion proposed the
following as the fairest solution:-
(a) That the workers at Head Office be paid #10
per week extra.
(b) That workers at the Depots not receiving the
full #10 per week from the Bonus Scheme be
brought up to #10.
(c) That any workers at depots receiving more than
#10 per week be allowed to continue.
(iii) The Company is seeking that the above be implemented
from 1st May, 1986, in view of the fact that the
Company is still experiencing trading difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court made its recommendation in accordance with the facts
as presented to it. In the light of the severe economic
circumstances facing the industry the Court recommends that the
#10 increase be applied to the scales of all the Claimants
with effect from 1st May, 1986.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
16th January, 1987 ---------------
P.F./U.S. Chairman