Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87334 Case Number: LCR11248 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ASHTOWN TIN BOX - and - NGA |
Claim for a wage increase and a reduction in the working week under the 26th wage round on behalf of 5 printers and 2 printers assistants.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made and information
provided the Court recommends that the Union's claim be deferred
pending an improvement in the Company's financial circumstances.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87334 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11248
CC87529 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11248
Parties: ASHTOWN TIN BOX LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION (N.G.A.)
Subject:
1. Claim for a wage increase and a reduction in the working week
under the 26th wage round on behalf of 5 printers and 2 printers
assistants.
Background:
2. The 25th wage round agreement terminated in the Company in
March, 1986. No wage increase has been paid since as the Company
has pleaded inability to pay. The Union claimed that the 26th
wage round settlement concluded with the Dublin Printing Trades
Group should be applied by the Company. That settlement was as
follows:
(i) A pay pause for the month of December, 1986.
(ii) A 4% increase from the 1st January, 1987 to 31st July,
1987.
(iii) A 2% increase from the 6th August, 1987 to 31st
January, 1988.
The Union is also claiming a reduction of the working week by one
hour, recommended in February, 1986 by the Labour Court in Labour
Court Recommendation 10300 in relation to the Dublin Printing
Trades Group. The Union is seeking retrospection on its wage
round claim to 1st January, 1987 and to 4th July, 1986 in the case
of the reduction on the working week. The Company rejected the
claim and has pleaded inability to pay any wage increase since
April, 1986. No agreement was reached through local negotiations
and on 30th March, 1987 the claim was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 22nd April, 1987 but no agreement was reached and the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 25th May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company has for many years honoured the Dublin
Printing Trades Group wage increases applied to the
printing trade and the workers in the printing
department are entitled to the same wage increase and
improved conditions enjoyed by their colleagues.
(ii) The Company may say it is not part of the printing
industry but without printers it could not produce
printed tin containers as the operation is of a highly
specialised nature.
(iii) The workers have extended co-operation and flexibility
to the Company.
(iv) The Company has a good workload at present.
(v) The workers earnings are below the average take home
pay when compared to similar companies in England.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company is claiming an inability to pay in response
to the claim made by the Union. Its financial position
is not capable of increasing pay of any section (the
Company supplied details of its audited accounts to the
Court).
(b) The Company's present difficult situation has been
developing for a number of years and has resulted from
increased competition, the effects of the recession and
the increased use of plastic containers in recent
years.
(c) The Irish market has been flooded with tins at
subsidised prices from British manufacturers. Several
Irish firms have been put out of business. Until this
situation is resolved the price for tin boxes will not
revert to an economic level. The Company is attempting
to stay afloat until then.
(d) Over half the production workers and all the craftsmen
have been made redundant by the Company but all workers
in the Union have continued to be employed. Short time
working has been constant for a number of years but
with little or no effect on the employment of the
workers concerned.
(e) All groups in the Company have been advised of the
economic and financial difficulties and they appreciate
the Company's position and want it to succeed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made and information
provided the Court recommends that the Union's claim be deferred
pending an improvement in the Company's financial circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman.
12th June, 1987.
T.O'M./J.C.