Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87422 Case Number: LCR11288 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GILBEY'S (I) LTD - and - FWUI |
Claim on behalf of approximately 300 employees for a wage increase for 1987 plus improvements in conditions of service.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, recommends as follows in relation to the various elements
of the claim:
1) Pay - 3% increase for a period of six months
and a further 2.50% for six months.
Termination date 31/12/87.
2) Creche - with regard to the claim for creche
facilities, both parties should
investigate the cost, demand, and method
of financing of such a facility within
the next six months.
3) Flexi-time - discussion on the possibility of
introducing a scheme in the office area
should be pursued.
4) Work-sharing - as above.
5) Profit-sharing - insufficient evidence has been presented
to the Court to enable it to make a
recommendation on this part of the
claim. The Court accordingly recommends
that the parties pursue this matter
further by examining the total
remuneration in the Company vis a vis
other companies in the industry.
6) VHI - the Court does not recommend concession
of this claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87422 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11288
CC87521 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11288
PARTIES: GILBEY'S OF IRELAND LIMITED
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 300 employees for a wage
increase for 1987 plus improvements in conditions of service.
Background:
2. The last agreement expired in the Company at the end of 1986
and the No. 3 and No. 17 branches of the Union submitted a joint
claim for the following:-
- 10% pay increase over twelve months
- introduction of a profit sharing scheme
- worker participation in the management of the pension fund
- working week to be reduced below forty hours
- VHI to be paid by the Company
- introduction of job sharing scheme
- introduction of flexi-time into the office area
- examination of the possibility of introducing creche
facilities.
In response, the Company offered a small pay increase
(unspecified) and agreed to examine the possibility of
introducing flexi-time and a share purchase scheme. In addition
it also agreed to introduce a proposal regarding worker
involvement in the administration of the pension scheme. All the
other claims were rejected. As local level discussions failed to
resolve the issue it was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 31st March, 1987. No progress was made at a
conciliation conference, held on the 14th April, 1987, and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 10th June,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Union is seeking a pay increase in line with the
better settlements in the round to-date. Industrial
Relations News (IRN), an impartial observer of the
scene, reports that the average settlement in the 27th
round to May, 1987, in single round agreements is 5.4%
over twelve months. No industry sectoral analysis is
as yet available and to date the alcoholic beverages
industry has not seen any widespread settlement level
emerge. Despite Management protestations to the
contrary, the Union believes that the Company is both
profitable and prosperous, with its main product,
Baileys, showing sustained growth in the market place.
(b) Profit sharing is a feature of the alcoholic beverages
industry (details supplied to the Court). These profit
sharing payments are made in addition to basic salary
and, as the Company, by product and size, is now a
member of the alcoholic beverages industry, this
benefit should be extended to the claimants. When the
benefits package in Gilbeys is compared with those of
the alcoholic beverages industry generally, it will be
seen that concession of the profit share scheme would
not put Gilbeys out of line with the industry.
(c) The Company already makes a contribution towards the
VHI subscriptions of certain members of management in
Gilbeys. The Union is anxious to move towards a
position where benefits for all staff will be equal
with the exception of wage rates. The Union is seeking
concession of this claim on the basis of internal
equity. The charges introduced in the recent budget
have imposed additional burdens on the claimants at
times of illness. This, taken together with the
ceiling for hospital service cards, puts the claimants
in the same position vis a vis the health services as
management staffs were at the time the VHI payments
were introduced. Accordingly, the Union feels
justified in seeking an equalisation of this benefit
across the Company.
(d) The Union requested the Company to examine the
possibility of introducing a work sharing scheme but
this was rejected. Such a scheme deserves serious
examination as it contains potential for reducing
unemployment and will give rise to no serious cost
increases for the Company.
(e) Flexitime is now an established system in the office
environment and there is no good reason why it cannot
be introduced in the Company. In addition, the Union
is quite willing to negotiate a scheme that will
provide adequate cover at critical times.
(f) The age profile in the Company is such that many
employees are raising young families and the absence of
creche facilities is a serious problem for many working
parents and needs to be addressed. Because of the
nature of social organisation this situation tends to
put more pressure on working women than on men and can
act as a discriminatory mechanism against them, putting
pressure on them to quit the workforce. Any measure
that attempts to address any aspect of possible
discrimination against any section of the population
needs to be examined with a view to implementation.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The present currency, market and economic factors
detailed to the Court make it necessary for the
Company to keep costs under tight control.
(ii) The wage increases granted over the past 18
months/two years have been very generous and should
be taken into account when deciding on an appropriate
level of increase for 1987 (LCR's 10249 and 10677
refer).
(iii) The inflation rate has been well exceeded by wage
increases granted to date. Accordingly, any increase
in 1987 must have regard for the current inflation
level. All commentators agree that for the
forseeable future inflation will be in or around the
3% mark.
(iv) The reduction in employment level is a clear
indication of the pressures on the Company
(approximately 27 employees will lose their jobs over
the next month or so). It is necessary that the
maximum number of jobs is safeguarded for the future.
(v) The drinks industry is no longer insulated from the
effects of recession and across the board, the
industry is experiencing severe reductions in
volumes. Pro-rata reductions in employment have had
to be implemented by a number of companies.
(vi) The Company is of the view that neither work-sharing,
flexi-time nor creche facilities are widespread in
industry and therefore is unwilling to concede these
claims. In addition, the introduction of any of the
above would give rise to both cost and administrative
problems for the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, recommends as follows in relation to the various elements
of the claim:
1) Pay - 3% increase for a period of six months
and a further 2.50% for six months.
Termination date 31/12/87.
2) Creche - with regard to the claim for creche
facilities, both parties should
investigate the cost, demand, and method
of financing of such a facility within
the next six months.
3) Flexi-time - discussion on the possibility of
introducing a scheme in the office area
should be pursued.
4) Work-sharing - as above.
5) Profit-sharing - insufficient evidence has been presented
to the Court to enable it to make a
recommendation on this part of the
claim. The Court accordingly recommends
that the parties pursue this matter
further by examining the total
remuneration in the Company vis a vis
other companies in the industry.