Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87381 Case Number: LCR11302 Section / Act: S67 Parties: STARBALL RETAINER CO (I) LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for the payment of a second phase of a wage increase under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court, taking
account of the competitive environment in which the Company is
trading and the costs it has incurred to adapt these conditions,
is of the opinion that its offer made in respect of the second
phase of the 26th wage round is reasonable and should therefore be
accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87381 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11302
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11302
Parties: STARBALL RETAINER COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the payment of a second phase of a wage increase
under the 26th wage round.
Background:
2. This claim concerns a total of thirty nine workers employed by
the Company as machine operators (22) quality control (4), packers
(7), chargehands (4) and two additional workers who are on a
special rate of pay. The 25th wage round expired for the workers
on 31st August, 1986. On 13th August, 1986 the Union claimed an
8% wage increase under the 26th wage round. The Company rejected
the claim, however, the parties reached agreement for a wage
increase of 4% over seven months for the period up to 31st March,
1987 and that further negotiations would take place then
concerning a second phase payment. The present weekly wage rates,
inclusive of the first phase of the 26th wage round are:
Chargehands 146.36
Machine operators 136.46
Quality control 130.32
Packers 116.91
In March, 1987 the Union claimed a 4% wage increase to cover the
second phase of the 26th wage round. The Company rejected this
claim and offered a 2% wage increase over the five months up to
31st August, 1987. The Union rejected this offer. No agreement
was reached at local level and on 25th March, 1987 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 5th May, 1987 but the parties
did not reach a settlement. On 8th May, 1987 the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held in Cork on 17th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The present rates do not adequately compensate for the
skill and effort required.
(ii) The wage rates paid by other employers in the west Cork
area are in excess of the rates paid by the Company
(details supplied to the Court).
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company's offer is well in line with increases
conceded in the present wage round. The Company is not
prepared to improve its offer which it considers is
fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
(b) The wage increase under the 25th wage round included an
out of line payment in concession of the Union's claim
that the rates were too low.
(c) Steel Ball Retainers are the Company's longest customer
and have traditionally accounted for the largest
portion of the Company's turnover e.g. 1985 - 65%, 1986
- 64%. It has indicated that there must be a price
reduction if the Company wishes to retain its business.
(d) The Company is under increased pressure as it was only
possible to increase prices by 1%.
(e) As a result of customer demands, the Company, has had
to increase its level of quality control which
increases costs as a consequence.
(f) The Company has extended its plant and improved
equipment at a total cost of #.50 million in the last
year. It has also recruited ten new workers over the
same time.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court, taking
account of the competitive environment in which the Company is
trading and the costs it has incurred to adapt these conditions,
is of the opinion that its offer made in respect of the second
phase of the 26th wage round is reasonable and should therefore be
accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
9th July, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.