Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/86/899 Case Number: LCR10957 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HANNONS POULTRY COMPANY LIMITED;FUE - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claims, in respect of the 26th Wage Round, concerning:- (a) an increase in basic pay, (b) improved sick pay scheme, (c) increased bonus payment, (d) clocking in time, (e) payment of higher rate during overtime, (f) protective clothing.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) - an increase in basic pay
22. The Court recommends that the Company's offer be improved by
bringing forward the effective date of the first round to 1st
January, 1987 and that the offer so amended be accepted.
Claim (b) - improved sick pay scheme
23. The Court recommends that Company's amendment to the scheme
be accepted.
Claim (c) - increased bonus payment
24. The Court recommends that the price per pound for meat
deboned in excess of 260 lbs be increased to ensure that it is not
less than the rate for the first 260 lbs. The Court does not
however recommend that the bonus payments be extended to
individual/process workers.
Claim (d) - clocking in time
25. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (e) - payment of higher rate during overtime
26. The Court recommends concession of this claim.
Claim (f) - protective clothing
27. The Court does not recommend any further concession of the
claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan.
________________________
Chairman.
27th January, 1987.
R.B./J.C.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86899 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10957
CC861415 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10957
Parties: HANNONS POULTRY COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims, in respect of the 26th Wage Round, concerning:-
(a) an increase in basic pay,
(b) improved sick pay scheme,
(c) increased bonus payment,
(d) clocking in time,
(e) payment of higher rate during overtime,
(f) protective clothing.
General Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the processing of cooked poultry for
export. It commenced operations in April, 1980 and employs
approximately forty six workers. The 25th Wage Round expired for
these workers on 30th September, 1986. In June, 1986 the Union
served the above claims on the Company under the 26th Round.
No agreement was reached at local level discussions and the
matters were referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference held on 28th October, 1986
failed to resolve the dispute and the matters were referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held on 9th December, 1986 in
Athlone.
Claim (a) - an increase in basic pay
Background:
3. The rates of pay of the workers concerned at the end of the
25th Wage Round are as follows:
Scale A - Process workers #126.00
Scale B - Deboners #96.92
The Union is seeking an increase of #20.00 per week on these
rates. The Company offered the following:-
"As from February, 1987 an increase of #4.00 for a
period of six months with a further #4.00 for a period
of five months. Duration of the agreement to be 15
months with no further claims of a cost increasing
nature being served on the Company for the duration of
the agreement. "
This offer was rejected by the Union.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The wage rates are seriously out of line with those
pertaining in the industry generally when total
potential maximum earnings are taken into account
(details supplied to the Court).
(ii) The Company's offer will in effect give an annualised
increase of 4.4% to the workers. This compares
unfavourably with the settlement trend in the 26th wage
round to date (details supplied to the Court).
(iii) The Company is geared mainly for export outside the
U.K. As a result it benefitted from the 8% devaluation
of the Irish pound within the EMS last year. Both this
devaluation and the devaluation of the Green Pound will
adversely affect the workers while the Company has not
passed on any of its gains from the devaluation.
(iv) The wage rates in the Company are also seriously out of
line with those in industrial employments in the
midlands region (details supplied to the Court).
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company is in a situation where there is increasing
competition from the other E.E.C. countries
particularly Holland. The Company actually lost orders
to the U.K. as a result of the devaluation of the Irish
Pound. The Company is not in a position to pay any
increase over and above that offered.
(b) There was a considerable amount of short time worked
during the past year.
(c) The Company's wage rates are not out of line with those
Claim (b) - improved sick pay scheme
Background:
7. The present sick pay scheme provides for 6 weeks' benefit in a
calendar year. The Union is seeking this be extetnded to twelve
weeks' benefit. The Company is seeking to amend the sick pay
scheme to provide for benefit of 6 weeks' in any 12 month period.
Union's arguments:
8. The Union is seeking twelve weeks' benefit which applies and
is the norm in most industrial employments (details supplied to
the Court).
Company's arguments:
9. The Company is aware of some abuse in the scheme as it stnds
at present and is, therefore, seeking the change to 6 weeks'
benefit in any 12 months period.
Claim (c) - increased bonus payment
Background:
10. The Grade B workers who debone chickens are in receipt of a
bonus payment of 6.25 pence per pound per day after the first 260
lbs. The Union is seeking a payment of 7.46 pence per pound
(which is the equivalent of the weekly basic rate of #96.92
divided by the weekly weight deboned (260 lbs x 5 = 1300 lbs)
before bonus is payable). The Company rejected this claim.
Union's arguments:
11. (a) At present 7.46p is paid for each pound of meat deboned
up to 1,300 pounds per week and thereafter the rate is
reduced to 6.25p. This represents a drop of 16%.
There is no justification for this difference in the
opinion of the Union's Industrial Engineer.
(b) The Union believes that the value of the bonus scheme
should be linked to any increase in the basic rate, as
is normal with all bonus schemes.
(c) The Union has identified several faults in the bonus
scheme. The value of the scheme has been declining in
recent years with avewrage earnings falling from #30 to
#12. The Labour Court recommended that the scheme be
discussed at the end of the 25th Wage Round
(Recommendation No. 10331 refers). However, the
Company refused to accept any suggestion whatsoever for
the improvement and rectification of the scheme.
(d) Workers in grade A get no bonus at all. The Union
considers it unfair that these workers who make a
meaningful and necessary contribution to the finished
product should be excluded from the bonus scheme. They
should get the average earnings of the scheme.
Company's arguments:
12. (a) The average bonus earned ranges from #12 to #50. The
Company is not prepared to increase this bonus payment
or extend it to the process workers. it would not be
in a position to finance such a payment.
(b) Other plants doing similar work have a flat rate
payment and do not operate bonus schemes.
(c) This claim was already discussed under the 25th Wage
Round and rejected. The Court stated in Recommendation
No. 10331 that other claims under the 25th Wage Round
should be discussed at the end jof the Round. The
Company examined each claim but no further improvement
can be made at present.
(d) The Company has been endeavouring to secure the jobs of
the workers.
Claim (d) - Clocking in time
Background:
13. The Union is seeking that employees be allowed put on their
protective clothing after clocking in rather than having to clock
in after changing. The Company rejected this claim.
Union's argument:
14. The workers feel that they should be able to don their
protective clothing in the Company's time.
Company's arguments:
15. The Company's position in this regard is quite clear. The
workers must be at their work-place with protective clothing on at
starting time, otherwise the deduction will be made for lateness.
Background:
16. The Union is seeking the payment of the higher rate for
overtime when transferred to a higher paid job. This rate is
already paid for normal hours under such circumstances. The
Company rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
17. Non-payment of the higher rate for overtime purposes does not
make sense if a person is in receipt of the higher rate for normal
hours. If a person is entitled to a rate job he should get it
whenever he works on that particular job.
Company's argument:
18. The conditions governing this are incorporated in the
Company/Union Agreement which came into operation in July, 1982
(details supplied to the Court).
Claim (f) - Protective clothing
Background:
19. The workers are issued with a maximum of seven pairs of
gloves free of charge in any one week. The Union is seeking the
provision of all necessary protective clothing free of charge.
Union's arguments:
20. (i) The free provisions of protective clothing is now
standardised and accepted as a normal part of an
employer's responsibility. The Union would be prepared
to agree procedures and control mechanisms to eliminate
any possibility of abuse.
(ii) The workers are incurring a cost of #6.00 per week on
average for protective gloves.
Company's argument:
21. The issue of protective clothing has been discussed and
agreed with the Union and is covered by the plant agreement
(details supplied to the Court). As a result of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10331 the number of pairs of gloves issued was
increased last year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) - an increase in basic pay
22. The Court recommends that the Company's offer be improved by
bringing forward the effective date of the first round to 1st
January, 1987 and that the offer so amended be accepted.
Claim (b) - improved sick pay scheme
23. The Court recommends that Company's amendment to the scheme
be accepted.
Claim (c) - increased bonus payment
24. The Court recommends that the price per pound for meat
deboned in excess of 260 lbs be increased to ensure that it is not
less than the rate for the first 260 lbs. The Court does not
however recommend that the bonus payments be extended to
individual/process workers.
Claim (d) - clocking in time
25. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (e) - payment of higher rate during overtime
26. The Court recommends concession of this claim.
Claim (f) - protective clothing
27. The Court does not recommend any further concession of the
claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan.
________________________
Chairman.
27th January, 1987.
R.B./J.C.