Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86864 Case Number: LCR10971 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CALOR KOSANGAS - and - ATGWU |
Union claims on behalf of approximately 128 clerical employees, sales representatives and managers under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not recommend any addition to the Company's
offer which should be accepted by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86864 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10971
CC861355 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10971
Parties: CALOR KOSANGAS LIMITED
and
ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL, TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFFS
(SUBSIDIARY OF THE AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT
AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION)
Subject:
1. Union claims on behalf of approximately 128 clerical
employees, sales representatives and managers under the 26th wage
round.
Background:
2. The 25th wage round expired for the claimants on the 30th
June, 1986. On the 10th July, 1986, the Association served the
following 26th round claim:
20% increase in pay over 24 months.
thirty days holidays after ten years' service in three
stages (two days per year), a total of five extra days
at 10 years' service.
Sabbatical (unpaid) leave.
Reduction in gas prices to staff by 22%.
Reduction in hours of work from 35 hours 50 minutes,
without loss of pay.
Company to pay full V.H.I. bill committed by employees.
Free shares in Company.
Claims arising from Operation of Visual Display Units.
At a meeting on the 8th August, the Company informed the
Association that the following package had been accepted by the
staff represented by the Irish Transport and General Workers'
Union (I.T.G.W.U.):
.A twelve month agreement from the 1st July, 1986, to
30th June, 1987, with a single phase increase of 5% on
salaries.
.V.H.I. subsidies to be increased by 4.4%.
.12% reduction in staff price of bulk gas.
.Increase of #22 in Christmas bonus (from #138 nett to
#160 nett).
.In addition to the present arrangements regarding those
who have 25 years' service (details supplied to the
Court), the Company propose to give staff concerned the
option of receiving an alternative gift of a travel
voucher for two, worth #500.
The Company had earlier rejected the claims on holidays,
sabbatical leave and shorter hours. In addition, it informed the
Association that it would investigate the issue of Company shares
but ruled it out in the context of the 26th round. This was
rejected by the Association and although the Company subsequently
made improved offers on both holiday entitlements for those with
low service and V.H.I. contributions, local level negotiations
failed to resolve the dispute as the Association considered the
proposed 5% pay increase to be too small. The matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 13th
August, 1986. A conciliation conference on the 25th September,
1986, failed to resolve the issue and on the 6th November, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 15th December,
1986.
Association's arguments:
3. (a) The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Calor Group
Limited which is in turn part of Imperial Continental
Gas Association, which is involved worldwide in the
sale and distribution of energy and in off-shore gas
and oil exploration.
(b) The Company has nearly 75% of the total market in
Ireland split between the domestic and industrial
sectors and it services nearly 450,000 Irish users and
is winning 90% of any major gas load in the Republic.
Consulting engineers recommend Calor to clients because
of its size and range of professional service
available. In addition, the Company recently completed
the provision of an extra 2,000 ton storage facility at
Tolka Quay, Dublin, at a cost of #1m. This facility
enables the Company to buy major gas loads, transported
in refrigerated ships, at a saving of #10 per ton.
(c) The Company is presently experiencing a boom in profits
brought about through the collapse of OPEC oil prices
earlier this year. LPG, as an oil by - product, is
being supplied to the Company at 50% cheaper than in
the late 1985, early 1986 period. With this new
pricing flexibility it has been able to reduce gas
prices whilst at the same time increasing its profit
margin.
(d) With the present central heating campaign, the Company
is achieving 250 new bulk central heating customers per
month. To date this year (1986) 1,200 such customers
have been processed and the Company will achieve its
target of 2,000 by 1st April, 1987. There is therefore
no economic reason why the Company should not pay an
increase of more than 5%. The only reason advanced was
that as the I.T.G.W.U. settled for 5%, it could not now
be seen to settle for a higher figure in this case.
The Association therefore requests the Court to
recommend as follows:
pay increase of more than 5%,
extra holidays for those in the lower service
bracket,
V.H.I. increase from #63.12 to #80,
Christmas Bonus increase to #160,
25 year service award - holiday
voucher valued at #500.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The market in which the Company operates has been
declining steadily in recent years (21% over the last
seven years) and thus it has become necessary to
strictly control all costs. This decline in the market
is due not only to increased competition but also
because of the expansion of the natural gas pipeline.
Future expansion, as per Government stated policy, of
the natural gas network will not only lead to a
substantial loss of existing business (estimated at
8,000 metric tonnes), but will also severely limit new
business opportunities in those areas to be covered by
the pipeline.
(ii) The Company's final offer to the Association has
already been accepted and implemented in settlement of
26th round claims by 212 employees represented by other
unions in the Company (details supplied to the Court).
(iii) The salary scales for the different categories of
workers covered by this claim (clerical staff, sales
representatives, and managers), compare very favourably
with those in outside employment (details supplied to
the Court). The clerical staff category also enjoy a
guaranteed assurance of earnings in their Labour
agreement and this is reflected in total average
earnings of #17,622 per annum for the twelve months
ending 31st March, 1986.
(iv) In addition a clerical staff daily attendance bonus
applies, which increases in accordance with the
percentage increases negotiated in the basic salary
scales. The bonus is subject to a daily non-attendance
penalty (details supplied to the Court).
(v) The normal standard working week for clerical staff is
35 hours 50 minutes and this compares favourably with
that of 40 hours applicable to manual and craft
operatives in the Company. The claim for a reduction
in the working week has been lodged before and the
Company pointed out that by the nature of the business
as a service industry, any reduction of working time
would seriously inhibit its ability to maintain an
acceptable service to its customers. In addition, a
number of clerical staff work substantial overtime and
any reduction of the standard working week will add
considerable overtime costs.
(vi) The standard holiday entitlement in the Company is
common to all categories and it compares favourably
with outside employments and is well above the pattern
of averages in other firms (details supplied to the
Court).
(vii) The Company paid out #8.5m in Labour costs in the
twelve months ending 31st March, 1986, with an addition
of #1.25m for a pension scheme which offers generous
terms to all employees. For a Company of this size
these costs are very substantial.
(viii) Traditionally, the Company has phased its wage and
salary increases to match the peaked nature of its
trade. Ideally it would have preferred to have split
the 5% into two phases, i.e. 2% from 1st July, 1986,
for six months and 3% on 1st January, 1987, for the
second six months. The single twelve month phase of 5%
from 1st July, 1986, which is on offer is a significant
increase in earnings for the period of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not recommend any addition to the Company's
offer which should be accepted by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
29th January, 1987.
D.H./J.C.