Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8762 Case Number: LCR11207 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN - and - AUEW(TASS);ITGWU |
Claims in respect of the 26th wage round, on behalf of 120 workers for: (1) increase in wages from 1st October, 1986, (2) shorter working week for workers on a 40 hour week. (3) An increase in annual leave. (4) Energy allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
made by the parties and taking account of the Bord's financial
circumstances and the state of the market in which it operates
recommends an increase of 4% in respect of an agreement to
commence with effect from 1st October, 1986, and to terminate on
30th September, 1987.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claims for a
reduction in the working week, an increase in annual leave or
granting of an energy allowance.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8762 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11207
CC861799 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO LCR11207
Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TASS)
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims in respect of the 26th wage round, on behalf of 120
workers for:
(1) increase in wages from 1st October, 1986,
(2) shorter working week for workers on a 40 hour week.
(3) An increase in annual leave.
(4) Energy allowance.
Background:
The 25th wage round expired on 30th September, 1986. On 1st July,
1986 the Unions wrote to the Company seeking a meeting to discuss
an increase in pay and improvement in conditions of employment.
At a meeting held on 3rd September, 1986 the Unions specified
their claim as either a 12% increase in pay from 1st October, 1986
or a package of (1), (2) and (3) totalling 12% in addition to the
introduction of an energy allowance (as applies in the ESB). This
claim was rejected by the Bord who at a subsequent meeting on 31st
October, 1986 made the following offer:
An 18 month agreement providing for:-
(i) Pay pause for 6 months from 1st October, 1986.
(ii) 2% pay increase from 1st April, 1987.
(iii) 2% pay increase from 1st October, 1987.
This offer was not acceptable to the Unions and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 3rd
November, 1986. A conciliation conference was held on 22nd
January, 1987. As no agreement could be reached both parties
agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Cork on
19th March, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (a) Wage increase
The 12% increase is a total cost covering wages, shorter
working and longer holidays. Based on the profitability
of the Company, we believe this claim is fully
justified. Wage levels in the Company represent
approximately 1% of the total turnover, and any
increase, therefore, would have a marginal effect on
profitability. It is estimated that the Company will be
handing over something in excess of #50 million to the
exchequer this year, which puts into perspective the
effect of our claim, which would cost #200,000 in total.
(b) Many workers throughout the country are expected to
accept small increases or indeed wage freezes based on
the profitability of the company. It is only reasonable
that workers in a profitable company should expect to
get above average increases. No doubt towards the end
of the gas field our members will be asked to make
sacrifices.
(c) Shorter working
This is the fourth time this claim has come in front of
the Court, and the case we make is identical to the
previous ones because the logic has not changed. In an
economy where 20% of the population is now unemployed it
is ridiculous that the employed people are working the
longest hours in Europe. Our suggestion is that we will
accept a 2 hour reduction in the working week for 40
hour staff. The cost of this reduction would be
approximately 1% on the total wage bill, and would
reduce our claim accordingly.
(d) Extra holidays
We have already pointed out, in previous submissions for
extra holidays, that the maximum number of holidays in
the Company falls very far short of that applying in
other semi-State bodies, for example ESB and Bord na
Mona, who are in receipt of up to 5 working days more,
based in some cases on service, in other cases on
status.
The argument for extra holidays is similar to the one
for shorter working week, in that other European
countries have many more holidays than Ireland. Any
reduction in the working time should have the effect of
bringing more people into employment. We draw attention
again to the fact that we will accept .4% decrease in
our wage claim for every extra day given. In other
words we are prepared to forego part of our increase for
time off in lieu.
(e) Energy allowance
Again we restate our case as in previous years, where
Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta have cheap travel, CIE free
travel, ESB has an energy allowance under negotiation
and Bord na Mona have subsidised turf. It is only
reasonable, therefore, that Irish Gas, a distributor of
one of Ireland's natural resources, should give the
workers involved an appropriate energy allowance. This
energy allowance could take the form of a voucher system
which could be used by any worker to purchase
appropriate units of energy, i.e. gas, electricity or
turf.
Bearing in mind the profitability of this organisation
and the negligible effect on these profits if our claim
is met in full, we ask the Court to support our case and
recommend accordingly.
Board's arguments:
4. (i) The offer made by the Board is in line with the
Government statement on pay policy in the public sector
taking into account the need to protect and create
employment, and to improve competitiveness, the
difficult financial and trading circumstances of State
bodies. Any increase over the Board's offer would have
inevitable repercussions throughout the public sector.
(ii) These factors also apply with equal force to the other
elements of the claim. All of these matters have been
consistently turned down by the Court in previous round
claims.
(iii) The gas industry is at present experiencing major
difficulties, e.g. fallen energy prices, Supreme Court
judgement limiting offtake of gas from Kinsale and the
nationalisation of Dublin Gas, have resulted in reduced
cashflow.
(iv) The workers' pay and conditions of employment compare
favourably with those in other commercial
State-sponsored bodies and in relevant private sector
employments.
(v) Irish Gas does not make profits in the conventional
sense; it is, rather, the trustee of a national asset,
and all excess of revenue over expenditure must be
applied to the benefit of the exchequer as directed by
the Minister for Energy.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
made by the parties and taking account of the Bord's financial
circumstances and the state of the market in which it operates
recommends an increase of 4% in respect of an agreement to
commence with effect from 1st October, 1986, and to terminate on
30th September, 1987.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claims for a
reduction in the working week, an increase in annual leave or
granting of an energy allowance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
____5th____June,____1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman