Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87180 Case Number: LCR11222 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NILANDS LTD - and - ITGWU;ITGWU;ITGWU |
Claim for a wage increase and improved conditions under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues and recommends as follows:
(a) Wage increase:
The Court recommends that the Employer's offer be
adjusted to provide for an increase of 6% in respect of
a period of 13 months and that this amended offer be
accepted by the workers concerned.
(b) Meal allowance:
The Court recommends that the meal allowance be
increased to #6.50.
(c) Dublin run:
The Court does not recommend any amendment to this
allowance.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87180 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11222
CC862040 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11222
Parties: NILANDS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for a wage increase and improved conditions under the
26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is involved in the wholesale distribution of
grocery products throughout the West of Ireland. It has depots in
Galway, Letterkenny, Castlebar, Sligo and Roscommon and employs a
total of 80 workers who are all represented by the Union. The
25th wage round agreement terminated in the Company on 31st
October, 1986. The present rates of pay of the workers are:
Driver - #137.47 per week.
Forklift driver - #133.93 per week.
General operative - #131.55 per week.
Warehouse assembler
(and cash & carry) - #127.99 per week.
In December, 1986 the Union lodged a 26th wage round claim as
follows:
(a) Out of line adjustment in basic of #6 per week for
grades covered by negotiations.
(b) A 12% cost of living increase effective in 1 phase for
12 months from November, 1st, 1986.
(c) An increase in clothing allowance of 12% - the current
allowance being #43 and #53 per annum.
(d) Helper allowance for Dublin run to be increased from
#20 to #30 per trip.
(e) Meal allowance from its current #5.75 per day to #6.50
per day.
The Company, which offered a 4% increase for twelve months from
1st November, 1986, rejected the Union's claim. No agreement was
reached through local negotiations and on 11th December, 1986 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 11th February, 1987
but no agreement was reached between the parties. The final
position at conciliation was that the Union amended its claim to:
(a) 7% single phase for 12 months.
(b) Clothing allowance to increase in line with C.P.I.
(c) Dublin run allowance to increase to #25.
(d) Meal allowance to increase to #6.50.
The Company's final position was an offer of:
(a) 5.5% single phase for 12 months or
6% " " " 14 "
(b) Clothing allowance increased by 3.2%.
(c) No offer on the Dublin run allowance.
(d) Meal allowance of #6.
On 6th March, 1987 the case was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
in Galway on 6th May, 1987 which was the earliest date suitable to
all parties. At that time the parties were still in disagreement
on three issues; basic pay increase, meal allowance and the
Dublin run.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union's claim is well in line with the norm for
settlements in the 26th wage round which is in excess
of 6% for 12 months. Settlements locally have equalled
this norm and the Company can pay the same if not a
better increase.
(ii) The workers living standards have been worsened in
recent years as their pay settlements never equalled
the rate of inflation. However now that the rate of
inflation is low the Company is trying to link the pay
settlement to it. This is not acceptable.
(iii) The Company is trading well and has the ability to pay
a wage increase as is being sought by the Union.
(iv) The Company should concede the claim as recognition for
the co-operation and flexibility given by the workers
over the years.
(v) The Company rates of pay do not compare favourably with
those in comparable companies. Full concession of the
Union's claim will merely be keeping in line with
trends in the industry.
(vi) The drivers on the Dublin run are paid #20 to hire
casual labour to assist in loading the lorry. This
amount is not adequate and the drivers often have
difficulty getting casual labour to assist. The Union
has moderated its claim and the allowance should now be
increased to #23.
(vii) As regards the meal allowance the Company should accept
full liability for the cost to the driver for all meals
during the day. The drivers had parity for meal
allowance with the commercial travellers whose
allowance has now been increased to #6.50 but the
drivers allowance is #5.75. This differential should
now be eroded.
(viii) The cost of concession of the Union's claim for
increased meal allowance is within the Company's
ability to pay.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) If the Company's final offer were accepted the adjusted
rates of pay would compare favourably with rates in
competitor companies. In addition the Company operates
an incentive bonus scheme for the majority of its
workers in Galway which yields an average weekly bonus
of between 35% and 50%. Most of the competing
companies do not operate such favourable schemes.
(b) The Company's offer on wages is in line with the
settlements achieved so far in the wholesale trade
throughout the country (details supplied).
(c) Since 1983 the Company pays a composite rate meal
allowance which is currently #5.75 per day. Concession
of the Union's claim for an increase to #6.50 per day
is unjustified particularly as V.A.T. was removed from
restaurant food effective from early 1986.
(d) The Company does not accept that any comparison can be
made with meal allowances to sales representatives.
The proper comparison is with competing companies and
it is clear that the position in the Company compares
favourably with them. The Company introduced a
drivers' Dublin allowance in 1986 when the practice of
sending helpers with the drivers was discontinued. The
allowance in question was to enable the drivers to hire
casual staff when collecting at depots in Dublin.
Drivers travel to Dublin roughly once a week. The
Company considers that the allowance fixed in 1986 is
generous enough to ensure that suitable casual labour
can be acquired and is not aware that there has been
any difficulty in hiring people at this rate or below
it. The present claim is not justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues and recommends as follows:
(a) Wage increase:
The Court recommends that the Employer's offer be
adjusted to provide for an increase of 6% in respect of
a period of 13 months and that this amended offer be
accepted by the workers concerned.
(b) Meal allowance:
The Court recommends that the meal allowance be
increased to #6.50.
(c) Dublin run:
The Court does not recommend any amendment to this
allowance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
8th June, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C. Deputy Chairman.