Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87340 Case Number: LCR11334 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH STEEL LTD - and - CRAFT GROUP;ETU;AUEW |
Claims under the 24th, 25th and 26th wage rounds on behalf of approximately ninety craft workers.
Recommendation:
7. Claim (a) 30% Increase in Basic Rates:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
Claims (b) and (c) Review of Companies listed in Analogue Scheme
and Re-Introduction of Analogues:
The Court sees no point in reviewing the analogue scheme now as
there is no prospect of the Company being in a position to
implement any increases which might be indicated by such a review
for the foreseeable future. The Court considers that the Unions
should concentrate their efforts on seeking the earliest possible
implementation of an incentive bonus scheme so as to provide some
means of increasing the earnings of their members and the survival
of the Company.
Other claims:
The Court does not recommend further concessions on the other
claims.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87340 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11334
CC87374 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11334
Parties: IRISH STEEL LIMITED
and
IRISH STEEL CRAFT GROUP
(A.G.I.B.S.T.U., A.E.U., E.T.U.,
I.N.P.D.T.U., N.E.E.T.U., U.C.A.T.T.)
Subject:
1. Claims under the 24th, 25th and 26th wage rounds on behalf of
approximately ninety craft workers.
Background:
2. The Company is a semi-State one involved in the manufacture of
finished steel products for the home and export markets. As part
of an overall survival package in 1985 a pay freeze was
implemented, wage analogues were suspended and a number of
redundancies took place. (Labour Court Recommendation No. 9896 of
22nd August, 1985 refers).
3. On 19th December, 1986 the Union submitted the following
claims under the 24th, 25th and 26th wage rounds:-
(a) 30% increase in basic rates.
(b) Review of companies listed in Analogue Scheme.
(c) Re-introduction of analogues.
(d) Review of Service Pay.
(e) Introduction of Sick Scheme.
(f) Modification of Pension Scheme.
(g) Increase in Annual Holidays.
(h) Introduction of realistic call-out allowance.
(i) Bonus as applied to supervisors.
(j) Free canteen, when required to work overtime.
(k) Same facilities as staff travelling from Cobh.
(l) Tool allowance for craftsmen (this was added later at
local level talks).
4. Local level meetings were held in January, and February, 1987
and on 24th February, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 5th March, 1987 at which the Company made
the following final offer:
1. 5% from 1st January, 1987 for twelve months
2. Introduction of an Incentive Scheme.
3. The negotiation of a Sickness Scheme to be put into
effect by 1st July, 1987.
4. Funding of the Pension Scheme to provide full credit
for past service by 31st December, 1988.
5. Payment of a once off lump sum of #70 to each worker.
These proposals were rejected by the workers and on 24th April,
1987 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 8th
July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) Arising out of the survival package in 1985 the workers
have accepted major rationalisation and efficiency
measures as well as redundancies and a three year wage
freeze (until 1st January, 1987). The Labour Court had
previously recommended (LCR No. 9738 of 21st May, 1985)
an increase of 7.12% under the 24th wage round which
was not implemented due to the wage freeze. Taking
this increase together with minimum settlements of 7%
under the 25th wage round and 6% under the 26th round,
the lowest increase due to the workers for this period
would be 22%. It is unreasonable to expect the workers
to forego these increases now.
(ii) In January, 1980 a wage analogue agreement was
negotiated and implemented with effect from July, 1979,
an annual review to take place in January of each year.
This replaced and incorporated previous bonus and plus
payments, etc. The reason the agreement was entered
into was to remove existing problems and disputes, in
the interests of both employees and the Company.
During the period of the Agreement, the Company has had
the benefit of the full co-operation of the craftsmen
in a number of areas without any claims being made.
This co-operation was given on the basis of application
of the agreement (details supplied to the Court).
(iii) A comparison of the wages currently paid in the other
companies listed for reference in the analogue show the
current and continuing loss to these workers (details
supplied to the Court). The rate of pay of these
workers is #55.01 less than the average and this amount
should be applied from 1st January, 1987. In addition,
the Company has made an offer to the production workers
of a 2.8% Analogue Review as from 1st March, 1987.
This has resulted in an erosion of 3.5% in relativity
for the craftsmen (details supplied to the Court).
(iv) Two of the companies listed in the analogue agreement
for comparison in determining the workers' rate of pay
have closed. The Company has refused to agree a
procedure for determining replacements. A new
procedure for determining replacement companies should
be agreed.
(v) Service pay in the Company has remained static over the
years and a review should now take place.
(vi) The proposed sick pay scheme (details supplied to the
Court) is totally inadequate. The workers should be
treated in a fair and reasonable manner. Clerical and
managerial workers receive more beneficial conditions.
(vii) Annual leave should be increased by one day in line
with other companies.
(viii)A reasonable call-out allowance should be negotiated
and implemented.
(ix) Supervisors presently receive a #25 bonus, this should
be applied to these workers.
(x) Craftsmen when working overtime should have canteen
facilities available at no cost, in line with the norm
throughout industry.
(xi) The craftsmen should receive the same travelling
facilities and benefits as apply to workers travelling
from Cobh.
(xii) The craftsmen neither receive a tool allowance nor are
provided with tools. In industry generally, one or the
other is normally provided. The craftsmen should
either be provided with tools or paid an allowance of
#200 per annum.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The Company has operated under very difficult market
conditions since the re-developed plant was
commissioned in 1981. The Company experienced massive
losses during the period 1981 to 1985 at which time the
Government laid down strict conditions for the
injection of further equity to ensure the Company's
survival.
(b) In the financial year ending June, 1986 the Company
recorded a modest trading profit but indications are
that there will be a sizeable loss this year. In the
same period selling prices have been falling by as much
as #40 per tonne of finished product. In view of all
these factors the Company had to decide that future pay
increases would have to be largely self financing and
account would also have to be taken of the financial
state of the Company.
(c) The offer proposed by the Company is a fair and
reasonable one in the present market conditions and
includes the more significant items in the Union claim
by providing substantial improvements in sick pay and
pension. The present wage round offer has been
accepted by all other groups in the Company and to
change this offer would have serious consequences for
the Company.
(d) When the freeze on pay increases was introduced in 1985
the analogue for the craftworkers as at 1st January,
1984 had been paid. However, the analogue for the
general workers became caught in the freeze. The 2.8%
is being paid to the general workers with effect from
1st March, 1987 in order to bring all workers into line
at the time the analogues stopped.
(e) The Incentive Scheme proposed by the Company (details
supplied to the Court) is based on improvements in
energy costs and employment costs per tonne against
standard achieved during a reference period. It is a
mechanism which will restore monies lost to the
workers. The scheme is designed so that the
co-operation of all workers is required to make it pay.
The scheme has been accepted by the general workers and
when all workers have accepted it, the scheme will be
introduced.
(f) Considerable progress has been made with other workers
on the Company's proposed sick pay scheme since the
initial offer made to the craftworkers.
(g) All employees of the Company up to middle management
receive twenty days annual leave per year.
(h) The craftworkers previously received a bonus which was
later subsumed into the analogue. The supervisor's
retained their bonus but this was excluded from the
rates determined in the analogue.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Claim (a) 30% Increase in Basic Rates:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
Claims (b) and (c) Review of Companies listed in Analogue Scheme
and Re-Introduction of Analogues:
The Court sees no point in reviewing the analogue scheme now as
there is no prospect of the Company being in a position to
implement any increases which might be indicated by such a review
for the foreseeable future. The Court considers that the Unions
should concentrate their efforts on seeking the earliest possible
implementation of an incentive bonus scheme so as to provide some
means of increasing the earnings of their members and the survival
of the Company.
Other claims:
The Court does not recommend further concessions on the other
claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
23rd July, 1987 --------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman