Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87261 Case Number: LCR11215 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TOOL & PLASTIC LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 20 workers for a pay increase under the 26th Round.
Recommendation:
5. In view of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends that Company offer an increase of 4% payable from date
of issue of this recommendation. The Court further recommends
that the wages be reviewed six months thereafter in light of the
Company's trading position at the time.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87261 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11215
CC87276 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11215
Parties: TOOL & PLASTIC
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 20 workers for a pay increase
under the 26th Round.
Background:
2. The Company is a sub-contractor which provides injection
moulding facilities in the Plastics Industry. The terms of the
25th Round expired for the workers on the 31st October, 1986,
their present rate of pay per week is #148.00 (#127.58 plus 16
2/3% shift premium). The Union on behalf of the workers served a
claim on the Company in November 1986 for an increase in basic
rates of pay of 10% for a twelve month period in respect of the
26th Round. The Company rejected this claim on the basis of
trading difficulties and its financial position. On 11th
February, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court and a conciliation conference was held on 20th
March, 1987. As no agreement was reached the matter was referred
on 27th March 1987 to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 30th April,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The workers' present rate of pay (details supplied to
the Court) is lower than that paid to workers in other
companies in the plastic industry (details supplied to
the Court). The present claim is therefore justified.
(ii) The negative response of the Company to the pay
increase is not in line with good industrial relations
practices particularly when one considers the
application, production and flexibility that the
workers have given to the Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The claim is not sustainable due to the Company's
financial position. Figures for the financial year
1986/87 (ending 31st March, 1987) indicate a break even
situation. Conceding this claim would require that
selling prices to customers be increased which would
make the Company less competitive.
(b) The Company has systematically tackled all costs
involved in the product in order to keep them at a
minimum and remain competitive. Labour costs account
for 53% of product costs and, as the principal cost,
must be kept to a minimum. The Company does not have
the resources to sustain losses and any increases in
cost elements such as an unfavourable exchange rate on
top of such an increase in labour costs would affect
its viability and ability to operate in the domestic or
export market.
(c) Competition in the injection moulding market is
intense. The Company is a small one operating in a
mid-technology sector of the market it does not have
the capital available, as its multi-national
competitors have, to invest in sophisticated
technology. A comparison has been made of the
Company's rate of pay with that of its competitors
(details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In view of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends that Company offer an increase of 4% payable from date
of issue of this recommendation. The Court further recommends
that the wages be reviewed six months thereafter in light of the
Company's trading position at the time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
---------------------
29th May, 1987
U.M./U.S. Chairman