Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87416 Case Number: LCR11308 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEDCASTLE MCCORMICK LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately six workers for a pay increase and parity in rates of pay with Cork, in respect of the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. The Court finds no basis for recommending parity of wages with
Cork and accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
The Court further recommends that the Company's offer in relation
to the 26th Round as set out in the letter of the 12th March, 1987
be accepted.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87416 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11308
CC87499 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11308
Parties: TEDCASTLE MCCORMACK LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION,
WATERFORD NO. 2 BRANCH
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately six workers for a pay
increase and parity in rates of pay with Cork, in respect of the
26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company has operations in a number of locations, two of
which are in Cork and Waterford. In the Waterford depot the
Company is involved in the importation, bagging and distribution
of coal. The 25th wage round expired for the workers on 31st
August, 1986 and the Union subsequently served a claim on the
Company in respect of the 26th wage round for a 9% increase in pay
and parity of rates with workers in Cork. Following local level
meetings the Company by letter of 12th March, 1987 made the
following offer:-
- an increase of 6% on basic rates for the period 1st
March, 1987 to 31st August, 1987.
- For the period 1st September, 1986 to 28th February,
1987 lump sums to be paid in lieu of retrospection,
as follows:
Artic driver #320
Foremen #270
Driver #270
General Worker #250 (pro rata to attendance).
- no further cost increasing claims for the duration of
the agreement.
This offer was conditional on the claim for parity with
Cork being dropped and if rejected would be withdrawn.
3. The Company's offer was rejected as the Union would not drop
the claim for parity with Cork and on 20th March, 1987 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 23rd April, 1987 at which no
agreement could be reached and on 20th May, 1987 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 23rd June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The claim for parity with Cork has been ongoing for
many years and has been continuously rejected by
management. The Company is engaged entirely in the
wholesale end of the coal trade, therefore there are
only a small number of workers permanently employed in
the Waterford depot, to whom the parity claim would
apply.
(ii) The rates of pay in Waterford are substantially below
those applicable in the Cork depot (details supplied to
the Court). In addition a more favourable bonus
applies in the Cork depot.
(iii) The cost of living in Waterford is even higher than in
Cork and the work in Waterford is as dirty and hard as
that in Cork. The workers should therefore receive the
same rates of pay as the workers in the Cork depot.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company's offer at local level was more than
reasonable. Since the abolition of the National Prices
Commission, the prices per bag of coal and anthracite
have dropped and the slack market has fallen apart.
The offer is in line with other settlements in the
industry and region (details supplied to the Court) and
it represents a gain in real incomes over the period of
approximately 3%. Concession of the Union's claim
would make the Company uncompetitive with other
companies operating in the south-east region and could
necessitate a reduction in the numbers employed.
(b) In the past, agreements on pay and conditions in the
Waterford and Cork depots have been negotiated
seperately. Different rates and conditions also apply
at the Limerick Depot and the rates in operation
reflect the prevailing trading conditions in each area.
Each depot within the group must operate and survive
seperately. Previously, a parity claim with Dublin was
served on the Company, this was also rejected and the
Union agreed not to raise the issue of parity for a
reasonable period of time.
(c) There are fundamental differences between the Cork and
Waterford operations (details supplied to the Court).
There is a huge difference between the cost base of
both operations through a combination of greater
haulage costs, customer profile and economies of scale,
both in terms of potential market size and actual depot
size. In addition, Waterford is probably the most
competitive area in the country.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court finds no basis for recommending parity of wages with
Cork and accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
The Court further recommends that the Company's offer in relation
to the 26th Round as set out in the letter of the 12th March, 1987
be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
9th July, 1987 --------------
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman