Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87242 Case Number: LCR11227 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LEO LABORATORIES - and - FWUI |
Claims on behalf of approximately 200 general workers under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. Claim (a) Wage Increase:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be
accepted.
Claim (b) Restructured Working Week:
The Court notes that the parties have agreed to discuss
this issue in the course of the current round.
Claim (c) Service Leave:
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Claim (d) Credit for Temporary Service:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be
accepted.
Claim (e) Security Holiday Relief:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (f) Grading Structure:
The Court recommends that the parties agree on the
appointment of an agreed third party to investigate in
detail the operation of the present grading structure
and to make a report to both sides as a prelude to
negotiations.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87242 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11227
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11227
Parties: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of approximately 200 general workers under
the 26th wage round.
General Background:
2. The 25th pay round expired for these workers on 31st of
31st August, 1986. The present weekly wage scales including bonus
are as follows:
GRADE 1 143.63 x 15 to 166.42
" 2 167.97 x 15 to 194.64
" 3 176.83 x 15 to 204.90
" 4 183.60 x 15 to 211.68
" 5 194.28 x 15 to 222.34
" 6 201.67 x 15 to 229.72
The Union lodged a claim for a 26th wage round agreement as
follows:
(a) 10% pay adjustment over a 12 month period.
(b) Reduction in the working week to 37.50 hours.
(c) Consolidation of the bonus into the basic rate.
(d) Improvement in the annual leave by 2 days.
(e) Service as a temporary employee to be counted for all
benefit purposes, after appointment to a permanent
position.
(f) Review of the holiday relief arrangements for the
security staff.
(g) Introduction of a stand-by allowance for the boilermen.
(h) Renegotiation of the salary scales.
(i) Increase in the cleaners bonus to 25%.
(j) Discussion on the job grading procedure to make it more
systematic.
The Company requested a pay pause until the end of 1986 followed
by a moderate single phase pay increase for twelve months to the
end of 1987. The workers rejected the Company's request. The
Company then made an offer which was not acceptable to the Union.
No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 17th
October, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 25th
November, 1986 and 16th December, 1986. At conciliation the
Company offered 4% for 10 months and 2% for 6 months effective
from 1st September, 1986. During conciliation the Union
substantially altered its claim to:
(a) 10% over 16 months
(b) Restructuring (not reduction) of the working week
(c) Holiday entitlement to be adjusted on a service basis
(not a general increase) as follows: 1 day after 3
years (currently 1 day after 5 years) 2 days after 7
years (currently 2 days after 10 years) 3 days after 10
years (currently 3 days after 15 years)
(d) Service as a temporary employee to be counted for all
benefit purposes.
(e) Security staff to be relieved on Holidays by Company's
staff instead of contractors.
(f) Talks on the grading procedures to take place during
the currency of the 26th Round to make it not
systematic.
No agreement was reached through conciliation. However arising
from conciliation the parties had further local negotiations in
the course of which the Company made a final offer for a 5% wage
increase from 1st September, 1986 followed by a 2.5% increase from
1st May, 1987 (details of the Company's offer are in the appendix
to this Recommendation). A similar offer from the Company had
been accepted by another branch of the Union. The workers
rejected this offer and on 25th March, 1987 the case was referred
to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 23rd April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Union's claim for 10% over 16 months is not
unreasonable and is in line with settlements in the
Industry. Several companies have paid increases of
this magnitude as part of the 26th wage round (details
supplied to the Court).
(ii) The majority of companies in the Industry have paid at
least 6% over 12 months which is also recognised as the
average annualised settlement for the round. The
Company's offer is therefore out of line with the
Industry and with the general trend of private sector
settlements.
(iii) The Union is satisfied at this time that the Company is
prepared to consider the restructuring of the working
week further.
(iv) The current service leave was agreed as part of the
25th wage round. The service requirement of 10 years
and 15 years for 2 and 3 days respectively is too
onerous and should be adjusted to 7 and 10 years
respectively.
(v) All periods of temporary service that have not been
interrupted for periods in excess of those laid down in
the Redundancy Payments Acts should be considered
continuous service and be counted for the purpose of
qualifying for benefits in the Company. The Union
considers that the definitions of continuous and
unbroken service laid down in the Redundancy Payments
Acts represent a reasonable legislative basis on which
to calculate continuous service and should be adopted.
(vi) A panel of Company workers should be drawn up to
provide security services for holiday relief purposes.
Work should not be handed away to outside contractors
until all internal sources of labour have been found
inoperable.
(vii) In 1977 the Union withdrew from the joint job
evaluation procedure. Subsequently, adjustments to
grades were negotiated at each pay review. Over the
years however, this review has lost all meaning and is
now more of a lottery than a systematic review of the
merits of any particular claim for regrading. The
distortion of equity thrown up by the present
arrangement which are a cause of simmering discontent,
must continue despite the shortcomings. However, we
would hope to be in a position to agree an alternative
arrangement for next year.
(viii) The Union has no way of checking accurately the
Company's state of health as it does not publish
reports. The Company is prosperous and profitable and
it should match the best settlements in the Industry
and not fall below the average for the round as they
now propose.
(ix) The Union's claim which is reasonable is a measured
reaction to the Company's performance and attempts to
address some serious industrial relations difficulties.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company's rates of pay are amongst the highest in
the pharmaceutical and chemical industry.
(b) The Company experienced reduced sales revenue and
substantially reduced profits in 1986 and the situation
in 1987 will be similar (details supplied to the
Court).
(c) The Company has no choice but to reduce costs and
increase efficiency at all levels. In requesting a pay
pause at the onset of the 26th pay round negotiations,
the Company was seeking the co-operation of all
employees in reducing costs. Unfortunately this
co-operation was not forthcoming. The Company in its
present difficulties is now seeking restraint from the
Union's Branch No. 3 members by asking them to accept
the Company's final offer.
(d) The Company's final offer, has already been accepted
and implemented by Branch No. 17 of the Union
representing 93 of the Company's clerical, supervisory
and laboratory employees. Any increase paid in excess
of the Company's offer to Branch No. 3 would result in
immediate parity claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Claim (a) Wage Increase:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be
accepted.
Claim (b) Restructured Working Week:
The Court notes that the parties have agreed to discuss
this issue in the course of the current round.
Claim (c) Service Leave:
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Claim (d) Credit for Temporary Service:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be
accepted.
Claim (e) Security Holiday Relief:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim (f) Grading Structure:
The Court recommends that the parties agree on the
appointment of an agreed third party to investigate in
detail the operation of the present grading structure
and to make a report to both sides as a prelude to
negotiations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
______________________
Chairman.
9th June, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.
APPENDIX I
RE: 26TH PAY ROUND
Please find outlined below settlement proposals resulting from our
Conciliation Conference of 16th December, 1986 and the Company's
further response to claims which were not fully dealt with at
Conciliation but were discussed locally with the shop stewards at
a later date.
Taken together these proposals form the Company's final offer in
respect of the 26th Pay Round. This offer is made subject to
recommendation by the committee.
1. DURATION OF NEW AGREEMENT
The Company is prepared to offer a 16 month agreement
in two phases expiring on 31st December, 1987.
2. PAY INCREASE
The Company is prepared to offer basic pay increase as
follows:
1st Phase Effective 1st September, 1986 + 5%
2nd Phase Effective 1st May, 1987 + 2.5%
3. CAREER BREAKS
The Company is prepared to introduce Career Breaks for
a trial period of 2 years with approval of any
application at the discretion of management. Details
of this scheme to be agreed in due course.
4. TEA ALLOWANCE
The Company is prepared to increase Tea Allowance to
#1.00 from 1st September, 1986.
5. EMERGENCY OVERTIME
The Company is prepared to pay Double Time for
emergency week-day overtime after 9.00 p.m. effective
from the date of acceptance of the agreement.
6. CLAIM FOR RESTRUCTURED WORKING WEEK
This claim is still under consideration.
7. REGRADING CLAIMS
The Company is prepared to discuss a limited number of
regradings.
8. UNION RESPONSE
1. No cost increasing claims from the commencement of
the new agreement to 31st December, 1987.
2. Full on-going co-operation and flexibility.
9. INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT
There will be no industrial action taken by either
party on questions of interpretation of this agreement.
In the event of a dispute concerning the interpretation
of this agreement the dispute will be referred to a
mutally agreed arbitrator whose decision shall be
binding on both sides for the lifetime of the
agreement. In the event of a failure to agree on an
arbitrator acceptable to both sides, the Labour Court
shall be asked to give its interpretation and such
interpretation shall be binding on both sides for the
lifetime of the agreement.
As already indicated the above package offer is made subject
to recommendation by the negotiating committee and I look
forward to your members acceptance of the offer and your
written confirmation.
In addition to the package the Company is offering 2 days
extra holiday per annum in exchange for the discontinuance of
afternoon tea breaks.
RE: 26th Pay Round Temporary/Permanent Employment
In addition to the terms included in my offer of 31st March, 1987
the Company is also prepared to credit temporary employees, who
are made permanent after 1st September, 1986, with full service
entitlement for the unbroken periods of temporary service leading
up to permanent appointment. Broken temporary service will not
qualify under the agreement.