Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86991 Case Number: LCR11034 Section / Act: S67 Parties: YATES INDUSTRIES LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claims under the 26th wage round for, (i) increase in pay, (ii) consolidation of shift premium for the purpose of calculating overtime, (iii) additional annual leave and (iv) canteen facilities.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the Company's final offer of #7 a
week plus 5% for 14 months plus one day's extra annual leave is
fair and reasonable and should be accepted by the claimants.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in
relation to overtime rates and notes the agreement reached on the
opening of the canteen.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86991 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11034
CC861912 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11034
PARTIES: YATES INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims under the 26th wage round for, (i) increase in pay,
(ii) consolidation of shift premium for the purpose of calculating
overtime, (iii) additional annual leave and (iv) canteen
facilities.
Background:
2. The Company is part of the Square D Corporation (U.S.) and
employs approximately 50 operatives at its plant in Cork which
produces copper foil for export. The operation involves 24 hour 7
day working with no shut-down for Summer or Christmas holidays.
The majority of the workforce are on shift with 23 workers on day
work. The 25th wage round expired on 30th September, 1986. The
Union quantified the above mentioned claim as follows: Claim (1)
12% increase in basic pay plus an additional increase for ongoing
flexibility, claim (111) 4 extra days holidays for day and shift
workers. The present holiday entitlement is 20 and 26 days
respectively. The Company made an offer which did not meet the
Union's aspirations. The matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 20th November, 1986. A
conciliation conference was held on 11th December, 1986. No
agreement was possible and it was agreed to refer the issues to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. After the
conference the Company's offer was basic pay increase of #6 plus
5% for a 13 month period from 1st October, 1986, rejection of
claim (11), the existing annual leave entitlement for shift
workers to be increased by one day, and main canteen would be
developed and opened when a production target output of 200,000
lbs per month is achieved. A further conciliation conference was
convened at short notice on 9th February, 1987. As no settlement
was possible it was agreed that the Labour Court hearing listed
for 11th February, 1987 at Cork should go ahead. At a meeting the
night before the hearing the Company put forward the following
final offer; an increase of #7 per week + 5% for 14 months plus
one day extra annual leave, and to operate the canteen from April,
1987. This offer, apart from the commitment to operate the
canteen, was rejected by the Union.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The basic pay of #160 per week does not compare
favourably with the basic pay of around #200 paid to
workers in other companies situated at Little Island
Industrial Estate where wages and conditions of
employment are standard throughout. Under these
circumstances the Union's claim of an increase of 12%
is not unreasonable, plus the additional increase for
the ongoing high degree of flexibility (details
supplied to the Court).
(b) As the Company does not shut down at holiday time
overtime working is compulsory rather than by choice.
Accordingly payment of shift premium on overtime
earnings should be introduced. This payment is quite
common in the Cork area.
(c) The Labour Court recognise that holidays are a vital
part of any workers life and must surely see the need
for the increase sought.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company is not yet cost competitive due to high
electricity, labour and transport costs. The unit
cost positions with other plants within the group
must be improved if the future is to be made more
secure. One major change that could ensure a major
improvement is to achieve a production output of
200,000 lbs a month. Until the Company reaches
profitability cost reductions in the short term will
be essential.
(ii) The claim for consolidation of shift premium is
rejected on the grounds that it is contrary to
practice in the Corporation worldwide. It would add
substantially to Company costs which were already too
high in comparative terms. The Company cannot be
compared with selected examples of practice in the
chemical industry of which it is not a part.
(iii) The Company's offer to increase annual leave
entitlement by one day is considered fair and
reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that the Company's final offer of #7 a
week plus 5% for 14 months plus one day's extra annual leave is
fair and reasonable and should be accepted by the claimants.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in
relation to overtime rates and notes the agreement reached on the
opening of the canteen.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
____6th__March,__1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman