Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87400 Case Number: LCR11270 Section / Act: S67 Parties: P.E.O'BRIEN LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an increase in wages under the 27th wage round on behalf of 12 workers employed in the warehouse and clerical sections.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows in relation to the 27th round claim:-
3% from 1st February, 1987 and a further
2% from 1st August, 1987.
Agreement to expire on 29th February, 1988.
The Court noting the Company's undertaking that no redundancies
will occur as a result of the flexibility they require further
recommends that the Union accept the proposed flexibility and that
the Company pay the five employees involved a sum of #100.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87400 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11270
CC87441 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11270
PARTIES: P. E. O'BRIEN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in wages under the 27th wage round on
behalf of 12 workers employed in the warehouse and clerical
sections.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is in the tool distribution business. The 26th
wage round expired on 31st January, 1987. The Union claimed an
increase in wages of 10% for twelve months and the introduction of
a Company pension scheme. In response the Company offered an
eighteen month agreement, six month pay pause followed by an
increase of 3% for twelve months, a commitment to improve the
pension scheme in return for flexibility between assemblers and
packers. This offer was rejected by the Union. The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 12th
March, 1987. Following two conciliation conferences held on 14th
April, 1987 and 8th May, 1987, at which no agreement was reached,
the position of the parties was as follows:-
Unions position 5% for twelve months, total flexibility between
the packers and assemblers with a payment of #300 nett to the five
workers involved. Company's position, a three month pay pause
followed by a 3% increase for thirteen months, a commitment to
improve the pension scheme and flexibility between assemblers and
packers when required by demand without any payment. Both parties
agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 11th June,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Union accept that the rates payable are reasonably
good (#170 to #215 a week depending upon type of work
and the point of the scale which they are on) but
believe that they reflect the very high standards which
the workers apply to their work.
(b) The Union's for an increase of 5% merely reflects the
trend in the 27th wage round and is under the
circumstances a reasonable one. (Details supplied to
the Court).
(c) At a staff meeting held last March the Company
announced that they had made a profit. This was due to
the commitment given to the Company by the workers.
(d) The workers have a number of reservations about the
flexibility which the Company want. They feel that it
could at some future date lead to job losses. Some of
the packers also feel that in recent times when they
applied for the job of assemblers they were told that
they were not suitable. Indeed the Company at the time
cast doubts on their ability to do the job. Now the
Company find that they are indeed suitable. This has
lead to bad feeling amongst the staff.
(e) To try and resolve the situation the workers involved
in the case decided to offer total flexibility between
the two grades rather than the partial flexibility
which the Company wanted. This would mean that the
workers would see through the entire operation of
assembling and packing of any order which came to them
and it would lead to greater efficiency. For this they
wanted a once off payment of #300.00 nett.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The rates of pay applying in the Company compares
very favourably with those in competitor companies.
The basic rate of pay for workers at age 30 is
#206.62 per week. An analysis of the six main
competitors show basic rates ranging from #153.20 to
#194.34 per week.
(ii) This Company is closely related to the construction
industry. As we all know, the construction industry
is going deeper into the recession that it has been
in for the last number of years; cement sales have
decreased by a further 7% over last year. The recent
Government budget which resulted in decreased grants
being available has left the industry with a very
bleak outlook. This has had very serious
repercussions for companies involved in the supply of
materials to the construction industry.
(iii) Sales in money value have decreased by over 2% in
1986 compared to 1985. The sales for the first
quarter of 1987 are down 1.25% compared with a similar
period in 1986. This decrease in sales takes place
at a time when overheads have increased by 8%. No
company can continue to exist indefinitely in a
situation where sales are decreasing while costs are
increasing. In the present climate it is not
possible to increase sales, therefore costs must be
controlled.
(iv) Competition in the marketplace has always been
severe. This situation is likely to deteriorate even
further with increased competition coming from the
U.K. where the products are cheaper due to the lower
overheads involved.
(v) On the question of a payment for full flexibility, it
must be clearly understood that the Company is not in
fact seeking full flexibility. What is in fact being
sought is that on occasions where the demand is such
that an assembler may be slack when a packer is busy
that the Company have the right to move that
individual into the busy area or visa-versa. This
situation will only occur on an irregular basis and
to a certain degree exists at the moment. The
Company are not prepared to negotiate or pay any
additional money in respect of this small change.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows in relation to the 27th round claim:-
3% from 1st February, 1987 and a further
2% from 1st August, 1987.
Agreement to expire on 29th February, 1988.
The Court noting the Company's undertaking that no redundancies
will occur as a result of the flexibility they require further
recommends that the Union accept the proposed flexibility and that
the Company pay the five employees involved a sum of #100.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
____1st___July,___1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman