Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87325 Case Number: LCR11316 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH CEMENT LTD - and - ITGWU;ATGWU |
Claim, by the Unions on behalf of three process operators, for the three-way division of a 16% coal allowance.
Recommendation:
8. In considering the submissions made by the parties, the Court
notes that the arguments for and against the claim revolve around
the basis of the 4% coal allowance paid to the four process
workers. This payment evolved from protracted negotiations and
the fact that it coincided with the payment of 4% to other staff
irrespective of the extent of their involvement with coal
indicates that it was part of a general resolution of a variety of
industrial relations problems which existed at the time. It is
significant that shift tradesmen were the only group who entered
any caveat in respect of the 4% payment and even they accepted it
fully after six months.
In view of this background, the Court does not consider that
alterations in the numbers of people in any particular area or
process warrants any change in the level of the % payment whether
it is regarded as a "coal" allowance or otherwise.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87325 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11316
CC87418 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11316
PARTIES: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Unions on behalf of three process operators, for
the three-way division of a 16% coal allowance.
Background:
2. In 1983, when the Drogheda plant changed to burning coal, it
was agreed between the Company and Unions that an allowance of 4%
would be paid to each of the four process operators on each shift.
This agreement was based on the system that applied in the
Limerick factory, which derived from Labour Court Recommendation
No. 6142.
3. Originally, the Company offered 8% to one process operator,
however this was rejected by the Unions on the basis of safety.
A suggestion was then made that 8% be paid to two operators,
however, after further negotiations it was agreed that four
operators would be paid 4% each. In 1984, as part of a
rationalisation programme, the Company decided to reduce the
number of operators on each shift to three. As a result the
allowance given is 4% for three operators i.e. a total of 12% per
shift.
4. The Unions' view was that the appropriate allowance should be
a total of 16%, which should be divided between the remaining
operators. They believed that the original arrangement to divide
the allowance into four parts was one of convenience and that the
amount of coal work has increased. The Company did not accept
this, pointing out that originally it intended to pay 8% to only
one operator. The Company also explained that it is normal policy
when a rationalisation or redundancy occurred, all the allowances
as well as basic pay of the redundant jobs disappeared.
5. On 11th March, 1987, the issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 15th April, 1987, and
on 22nd April, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 23rd June, 1987, in Navan.
Unions' arguments:
6. (a) The Unions believe that if the original Company
proposal, i.e. that two operators would receive 8%
each, had been implemented then the Company would
still be paying 16% whilst not having the flexibility,
safety and fire protection that applies at present.
(b) The Company, in 1983, accepted and acknowledged the
merits of the method of payment but now the Company is
using the flexible approach of the Unions against them
by using the situation to reduce the 16% allowance to
12%.
(c) When the original deal on the coal allowances was
agreed in 1983, there was only one coal mill. Now
there is a second mill. As a result the work in
relation to coal has increased proportionately. Since
the original agreement the operatives have also taken
on extra duties such as looking after the stores and
delivering the post.
Company's arguments:
7. (i) The coal allowance, like other allowances, is part of
the individual's total pay in any year. Therefore, it
should disappear with the individual in a redundancy
situation, as do all other payments.
(ii) The Company agreed to the payment of 4% for the four
operators in the context of an industrial relations
solution to the matter. In addition, all shift
workers, irrespective of their involvement with coal,
were paid 4%. This includes helpers, fitters,
electricians, foremen and process controllers who have
no direct involvements at all with coal.
(iii) Both the Limerick and Drogheda plants are now only one
kiln operations, producing approximately the same
tonnage per annum. In the Limerick plant there are
three process operators receiving the 4% allowance
with no basis for a claim against the Company. If the
claim were conceded the Company believes that these
operators along with other groups in the Company would
have grounds for a claim.
(iv) The Company already has in existence a very expensive
arrangement for compensation for additional work and
changed work practices arising from agreed redundancy
payments. This year it will be approximately #900 and
is pensionable.
(v) Irish cement workers are the highest paid in Europe,
even though the market has declined sharply in recent
years. It would be most inappropriate for the Company
to concede any increases in pay at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. In considering the submissions made by the parties, the Court
notes that the arguments for and against the claim revolve around
the basis of the 4% coal allowance paid to the four process
workers. This payment evolved from protracted negotiations and
the fact that it coincided with the payment of 4% to other staff
irrespective of the extent of their involvement with coal
indicates that it was part of a general resolution of a variety of
industrial relations problems which existed at the time. It is
significant that shift tradesmen were the only group who entered
any caveat in respect of the 4% payment and even they accepted it
fully after six months.
In view of this background, the Court does not consider that
alterations in the numbers of people in any particular area or
process warrants any change in the level of the % payment whether
it is regarded as a "coal" allowance or otherwise.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman