Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86885 Case Number: LCR10930 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for the introduction of a bonus scheme for personnel employed in the despatch department (3 despatch and one store personnel).
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's offer
in respect of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86885 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10930
CC86869 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10930
Parties: PRETTY POLLY (KILLARNEY) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the introduction of a bonus scheme for personnel
employed in the despatch department (3 despatch and one store
personnel).
Background:
2. At a meeting on September, 30th, 1985, the Union sought
increased remuneration for despatch and store personnel. The wage
level of despatch personnel is #114.27 plus a productivity award
of #6.86. The wage level of the store person is #111.86. The
Company advised that it could see no basis for increased
remuneration unless it could be financed by a manning level
reduction. Following a detailed investigation the Company
offered, in return for the introduction of a High Day Rate
Performance level of approximately 87.5% (B.S.I.) and the
amalgamation of despatch and store duties leading to a reduction
in the manning level of one person, to increase the despatch
productivity award by #10.83 - the level of settlement of the new
finishing equipment agreement. This offer was not accepted and
despatch personnel sought the introduction of a performance
related measured work bonus scheme, yielding a bonus level of 33
1/3% on their present gross wage. The Company considered such a
scheme unsuitable to the despatch department. As no agreement
could be reached, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court in May, 1986. A conciliation
conference took place on 15th May, 1986. No agreement was reached
and a request for an investigation and recommendation by the
Labour Court was received on 30th October, 1986. A Labour Court
hearing was held in Killarney on 3rd December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Company has already in effect received a form of
rationalisation in the despatch department. In 1982 a
worker left. He did not receive any redundancy lump
sum as negotiations on terms for redundancy were not
concluded at that stage. He was not replaced and more
effort was required by the other people in the despatch
department. The Company achieved considerable savings
in this case by not having to pay any redundancy lump
sum or a weekly wage on an ongoing basis. The workers
in the despatch department have not benefited from
these savings.
(b) The workers concerned are the lowest paid in the
factory. They have contributed as much as the other
workers towards rationalisation in the Company and
should be rewarded accordingly.
(c) It would be physically impossible to do the job in the
despatch department with any less personnel.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The introduction of a measured work bonus scheme in
despatch is unsuitable as there is insufficient
throughput to allow the personnel to work at standard
performance.
(ii) Even if it were possible to introduce a measured work
bonus scheme, the agreed bonus level at standard
performance on measured work operations is 26%. This
was increased to 33 1/3% only on those operations
specifically covered by the terms of the new finishing
equipment agreement. In addition it should be noted
that bonus levels are not based on existing
productivity awards.
(iii) The non-replacement of one despatch person who left in
1982 is not relevant to the performance level of
despatch personnel. That resignation coincided with
the closure of the packing section as a result of which
there was a reduction in the number of cartons being
despatched.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's offer
in respect of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
22nd January, 1987.
M.D./J.C.