Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87382 Case Number: LCR11244 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BROOKS HOUGHTON LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of 38 general operatives, for an increase in pay under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. In the present very serious trading position facing this
employment, the Court does not recommend any further increase for
the 26th wage round on the terms which have already been accepted
by the majority of the workers employed by the Group. Accordingly
the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87382 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11244
CC87477 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11244
PARTIES: BROOKS HAUGHTON LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of 38 general operatives, for an increase in
pay under the 26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is based in Cork and, along with Brooks Thomas
Ltd of Dublin and Brooks Hanley Ltd of Sligo, was taken over by
the multi-national group Rauma Repola (Ireland) Limited in 1981.
The 26th wage round fell due on 1st October, 1986, and, failing
agreement at local level, was the subject of a Labour Court
conciliation conference on 21st November, 1986. This meeting
dealt with the matter on a Group basis. However, the Union's Cork
No. 3 Branch indicated that general operatives in Cork were not
party to the Group negotiations. Subsequently, the question of
the 26th wage round for the Group was referred to the Labour Court
and, following a Labour Court recommendation, terms as follows
were agreed:-
(i) Pay pause from 30th September, 1986, to 12th April, 1987.
(ii) Payment of #125 in lieu of this pause.
(iii) An increase of #6 per week in basic rates for all employees
effective from 13th April, 1987.
(iv) Payment of #75 per person if Group budgeted sales (May to
December, 1987) are achieved. This payment to be made in
February, 1988.
(v) Agreement on pay to terminate on 31st January, 1988.
In the meantime, the Union sought local discussion on behalf of
the general operatives in Cork and served a claim for a 7%
increase over 15 months, in two phases of 4% for 9 months and 3%
for 6 months. The Company rejected this claim and was prepared to
offer the Group settlement only. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court and a conciliation
conference took place on 7th May, 1987. No agreement was reached,
however, and the matter was referred to a full hearing of the
Labour Court. The hearing took place on 21st May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) An agreement was entered into in 1968 arising from
which the Cork Timber and Hardware Trade Agreement was
formed. This agreement set out rates for the vast
majority of such Companies in the Cork area including
Brooks Haughton. In 1982 the Company resisted a claim
by the Union to break with the Trade Agreement.
(ii) In 1984 the Companies who were party to the Trade
Agreement decided to undertake individual negotiations
on wages and this has been the practice since that
time. This has resulted in eight of the original ten
Companies maintaining parity. However, under the 26th
wage round, settlements in these Companies have
resulted in a 7% increase over 15 months and the Union
is seeking a similar increase on behalf of its members
in Brooks Haughton.
(iii) Over the past few years the workers have accepted a
50% reduction in manning levels and the elimination of
certain work practices which have led to a high degree
of flexibility within the Company's operations.
(iv) The Company's offer will result in a difference of
#5.50 per week in the docketman's rate in comparison
with their counterparts in similar industries in Cork.
The Union sees this as a breach of the commitment
entered into in 1982 by the Company that there would
be no change in existing working conditions as a
result of the change of ownership to Rauma Repola
(Ireland) Limited.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) In the past Brooks Thomas Limited has been first of
the Group to conclude pay settlements while Brooks
Haughton Ltd and Brooks Hanley Ltd subsequently
secured the same terms. Approximately 260 of 300
employees have accepted the Company's final offer on
the 26th round and management sees no justification
for making a different settlement with the remaining
employees in Cork.
(b) Rates of pay have not been negotiated on a trade basis
for many years and it is now established that
Companies pay only what they can afford without regard
to the situation in competitor Companies.
(c) Since the takeover, the Group has lost substantially
(details supplied to the Court). All three Companies
have contributed to the losses. A loss is again
forecast for 1987 and disruptive action taken recently
by the Cork manual employees has exacerbated this
situation. The parent Company has invested heavily in
Brooks Haughton since 1982.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the present very serious trading position facing this
employment, the Court does not recommend any further increase for
the 26th wage round on the terms which have already been accepted
by the majority of the workers employed by the Group. Accordingly
the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th June, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman