Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87467 Case Number: LCR11332 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CPI LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Withdrawal of a productivity payment.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the very severe difficulties being presently
experienced by the Company the Court recommends that the Union
agree for the time being to the measures proposed by the Company
on the strict understanding that the bonus is restored as soon as
possible and that future salary adjustments take account of
increments lost due to implementation of the proposals.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87467 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11332
CC87611 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11332
Parties: CONCRETE PRODUCTS OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Withdrawal of a productivity payment.
Background:
2. Under the terms of a productivity agreement, clerical staff in
this Company received a bonus of 4 weeks' pay per year (2 weeks at
Christmas and 2 at Summer holidays). In January, 1987 the Company
announced that this bonus would be suspended until all three
companies on site (Marley Flooring and Plumbing, Marley Roof Tiles
and C.P.I. (Concrete) Ltd), returned to profitability. The
Company also stated that annual salary reviews for monthly paid
staff would not be applied this year. This latter measure
affected two workers who have since been made redundant. The
Union contended that the Company could not unilaterally alter
freely negotiated conditions of employment. The Company, for its
part, stated that it had no option but to impose the measure given
the financial realities faced by the Company. Agreement could not
be reached at local level, and on 10th April, 1987, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 1st May, 1987. Agreement
was not reached and on 9th May, 1987, the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 6th July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) In 1980, the Union reached agreement with the Company
on new technology and computerisation. Numerous
redundancies occurred, coupled with changes in manning
levels/work practices. In return for an almost
open-ended freedom on the part of the Company, the
workers were in receipt of twice yearly bonus payments,
(two weeks' pay at Christmas time, and two weeks' pay
when the worker went on Summer holidays). Because the
workers were persuaded that the Company needed this
freedom, they willingly co-operated with the widespread
changes.
(ii) The bonus payments were calculated to have the greatest
impact in persuading the workers to agree to the terms
of the Company's proposals. The Company has not been
slow to use the agreement to the fullest extent in
order to extract maximum advantage from it. Now that
its usefulness to the Company seems to be exhausted,
there is an attempt to take back the price paid to
achieve it.
(iii) Since the Company stated its intention regarding the
suspension of bonus payments, a further 8 workers have
been made redundant. The Union has had meetings with
the Company to discuss the loss of the payments but to
no avail. The Company's action is an arbitrary and
unjustified breach of a freely negotiated agreement.
The Union requests the Court to recommend accordingly.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company's action was forced upon it by a difficult
trading climate and current financial problems (details
supplied to the Court). The suspension of bonus
payments was not done lightly, but is necessary to
ensure the future viability of the Company. As such,
it is in the long term interests of the workers
themselves.
(b) Against a background of major rationalisation,
redundancies, and (for production employees) extensive
periods of lay-offs to date in 1987, the Company's
requirement with respect to bonus payment and merit
awards is not unreasonable.
(c) The current rates of pay in the Company, excluding
bonus and merit awards, and indeed any pay increase in
1987 are extremely good, particularly taking account of
the industry (details with the Court).
(d) The workers here concerned are being treated in an
identical fashion to all of the Company's clerical and
salaried employees. Unlike their production
colleagues, they have not sustained any loss of
earnings by way of lay-offs.
(e) Custom and practice, precedent, and forced changes in
peoples conditions of employment etc all have a very
hollow ring when it comes to issuing notices of
redundancies. The Company would not treat any
sub-group within the overall staff grade in a different
manner to the rest. It is thus a question of all of
the staff or none. Payment of bonus/merit awards would
place an unacceptable burden on the Company in the
current year.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the very severe difficulties being presently
experienced by the Company the Court recommends that the Union
agree for the time being to the measures proposed by the Company
on the strict understanding that the bonus is restored as soon as
possible and that future salary adjustments take account of
increments lost due to implementation of the proposals.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
20th July, 1987
P.F./J.C.