Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87230 Case Number: LCR11209 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NYPRO LTD - and - FWUI |
Claim for an 8% increase in wage rates plus improvements in conditions of employment under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends as follows:-
(a) an increase of 6% with effect from the 1st January, 1987, in
respect of an agreement to last until 31st December, 1987.
(b) that the parties negotiate directly on the terms of the sick
pay and pension schemes.
(c) the Court does not recommend any change in the overtime
arrangements in the context of the situation as it currently
exists.
Having regard to outstanding issues mentioned during the hearing,
the Court would be prepared to arrange for the services of an IRO
to assist in direct discussions between the parties.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87230 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11209
SECTION20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11209
Parties: NYPRO LIMITED
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim for an 8% increase in wage rates plus improvements in
conditions of employment under the 26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in custom injection moulding which
entails moulding plastic parts for customers using moulds which
the customer owns. It has been trading since 1983, having taken
over the loss making division formerly operated by the Solus Group
Limited. The 25th round for the workers concerned expired on the
31st December, 1986, and on the 1st December, the Union lodged the
following claim:-
- an 8% increase in basic rates over twelve months from the 1st
January, 1987
- the introduction of a sick pay scheme
- the introduction of a contributory pension scheme
- one extra day's annual leave
- payment of shift premium to shift workers on all overtime.
At a local level meeting on the 17th December, the Company stated
that it was only prepared to negotiate on the 26th round when all
the terms of the 25th round were implemented. The specific item
outstanding from the 25th round (LCR 10118 refers) is agreement on
implementation of four group shift working for members of the
Union (full details and background to this issue supplied to the
Court). On the 5th February, 1987, the Union referred the matter
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. However, the
Company refused to attend a conciliation conference unless the
issue of four group shift was on the agenda. As this was
unacceptable to the Union, it referred the case to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
agreeing to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on the 1st May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Irish Congress of Trade Union's Pay Bulletin of
November, 1986, shows that 6% is the annualised average
increase based on the Congress analysis of 153
agreements in firms employing 30 or more workers.
Seven out of ten settlements fall in the range of 5 -
7%. Two thirds of the agreements were for twelve
months and three fifths of the agreements provide for a
single phase pay increase.
(b) Having regard to the fact that an 8% increase in basic
pay would only yield a gross increase of #10.00 per
week and bring the rate of an operator from #125.00 per
40 hour week to #135.00 per 40 hour week it can be seen
that the wage claim is both realistic and merited.
(c) Because of the longer than average duration of the
previous round in this employment, the starting date of
the 26th round has been delayed until 1st January,
1987, and in these circumstances the claimants are
insisting on a twelve month agreement, which would
still leave than lagging behind the starting dates for
the 27th round across industry in the private sector.
(d) The Company commenced operations in January, 1983, and
there is still no sick pay scheme in operation. The
Union is proposing that the scheme would provide for
the Company to fund the difference between Social
Welfare entitlements and average nett pay for a maximum
of four weeks in a twelve month period for those
employees with twelve months' continuous service. The
Union proposes that the scheme would become operational
from the 1st June, 1987.
(e) In addition there is no pension scheme in the Company
and the claimants consider that as a priority this
should be rectified and a contributory pension scheme
be negotiated between the Company and the Union over
the next three months. Clearly, awaiting any
worthwhile initiative from the Government in relation
to a national income related scheme is unrealistic
having regard to the country's financial situation and
the significant cutbacks in pay related benefits.
Regard also has to be given to the less than
satisfactory experience in the U.K. in respect to the
income related pension scheme.
(f) There is a willingness amongst the membership to
contribute to a Company scheme which would have the
attraction of tax free contributions. Given the age
profile of the membership there is no reason why a
contributory pension scheme should not be negotiated
and implemented within the time scale stated above.
(g) The annual leave entitlement is 20 days per annum and
there has been no improvement in this since the Company
was set up. Movement towards a fifth week annual leave
has been progressing throughout industry and it is not
unreasonable that a start is made in this 26th round in
this employment. The Court will be aware that Ireland
is trailing behind all of its E.E.C. partners in
relation to paid leave. It should be noted that no
additional leave accrues to shift workers (who are the
majority) in this Company.
(h) The matter of payment of shift premium to shift workers
on all overtime has long been a bone of contention for
the Union. The present system within the Company is
that if a shift worker works on his rest days, i.e.
between 8.00 a.m. on Saturday and 8.00 a.m. on Monday
on overtime that he does not carry his shift premium.
If, however, he works overtime at the end of his normal
shift, then shift premium is included for overtime
calculation. The Union contends that where an employee
is designated as a shift worker that he should be paid
his shift premium for all hours worked and that he
should not as it were become a "Day Worker" on his rest
days and lose his shift premium when working overtime.
(i) While the Union has never been privy to the financial
position of the Company, it has no reason to believe
that the claims could not be met. Indeed, the Union
understands that a wage increase has been paid to
non-Union employees in return for accepting new
conditions of employment.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The fundamental and basic Company argument is that
the Company's 25th round wage offer was made
conditional on all employees (including former Solus
employees) agreeing to work a four shift system.
This condition was contained in the Company's
submission to the Labour Court under the 25th round
and was recommended for acceptance in LCR10118. The
position whereby the Union unilaterally decides to
renage on its unqualified acceptance of LCR10118,
after the Company has honoured its commitment by
paying the 25th round increase, is not acceptable.
Therefore, until all the terms of the 25th wage round
are implemented the Company refuses to discuss the
26th round and there will be no compromise on this
issue.
(ii) While the above represents the Company's main
argument it should also be noted that its two biggest
competitors in Ireland, employing about 300 people
and 70 people respectively and whose employees are
represented by F.W.U.I. are both entitled to
introduce a 4-shift rotation system and in one case
they have been operating a 4 shift system since last
August.
(iii) On 2nd March, 1987, the Company made a direct offer
under the 26th round to all employees who were
formerly covered by the Nypro/F.W.U.I. Site Agreement
(the Company had withdrawn from the Site Agreement in
February, 1987, in accordance with the three months'
notice given to the Union on the 21st November, 1986)
and who accepted the conditions attaching to the
offer. Item 2 on this document is an agreement to
work a 4 X 8 hour shift as defined in clause 11(f) in
the Nypro/F.W.U.I. Site Agreement or any alternative
which may be agreed in the future. This offer has
been accepted by 62 out of 104 hourly paid workers
and represents 60% acceptance. Of the 51 former
Solus workers, a total of 27 or 53% have accepted the
offer with the obligation to accept 4 shift working.
This represents a majority on both counts (details
supplied to the Court).
(iv) If the 24 former Solus workers (one of whom is
obliged to accept 4-shift working as he was promoted
subsequent to 1/1/83) are not prepared to honour
their commitments to work 4 group shift as they
undertook to do by their acceptance of LCR10118, then
they will have to accept redundancy, as the Company
and the livelihood of 127 employees cannot be placed
in jeopardy by their action. The Company cannot
allow a group representing less than 19% of all
employees to hold the remainder to ransom. The
resolution of the present dispute will only be in the
context of the Company's 26th round offer which has
been accepted by 60% of our employees and 53% of the
former Solus employees. Items 2, 3 and 4 of this
document covers 4-shift working, shift overtime at
weekends and a tightening up on the lateness and
absenteeism clauses which were being abused. Item 5
is a re-affirmation of the managements right to
manage.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends as follows:-
(a) an increase of 6% with effect from the 1st January, 1987, in
respect of an agreement to last until 31st December, 1987.
(b) that the parties negotiate directly on the terms of the sick
pay and pension schemes.
(c) the Court does not recommend any change in the overtime
arrangements in the context of the situation as it currently
exists.
Having regard to outstanding issues mentioned during the hearing,
the Court would be prepared to arrange for the services of an IRO
to assist in direct discussions between the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
____29th___May,___1987. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman