Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86965 Case Number: LCR11040 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SIEMENS LTD - and - MPGWU |
Claim, for an increase in pay, on behalf of nine assemblers and one machine operator in the electrical assembly department.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
does not find justification for recommending concession of the
claim for "out of line" adjustment on basic rates. The Court
recommends that in relation to the 26th round claim the Company
offer and Union accept as follows:-
3% or #4 per week on basic (whichever is the greater) from 1/6/86
for 6 months and a further
3% or #4 per week on basic (whichever is the greater) from 1/12/86
agreement to expire on 31/5/87.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CC861803 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11040
CD86965 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11040
PARTIES: SIEMENS LIMITED
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, for an increase in pay, on behalf of nine assemblers
and one machine operator in the electrical assembly department.
Background:
2. The Company's electrical assembly department was set up as a
result of a contract with the ESB to manufacture and supply the
meters for registering electricity consumption, and is renewed on
an annual basis. The components are manufactured in Germany.
On 8th September, 1986, the Union served a claim under the 26th
wage round as follows;
(i) 10% increase for a 12 month period commencing 1/6/86,
(ii) Introduction of a shorter working week,
(iii) Review of salary of a worker.
All staff in the Company, other than the claimants, have accepted
a 26th round settlement of 6% in two 6 month phases from 1/6/86.
The nine assemblers are on a rate of #105 per week plus a bonus of
20%, making a total of #126. The die-casting machine operator is
on a rate of #141 including a 20% bonus and a machine rate of #10.
At a local level meeting to discuss the claim, the Union declined
the 6% increase for these workers arguing that their rates were
very much out of line and increased their claim to a minimum
increase of #10 per week on basic rates prior to any cost of
living increase. The Company did not accept that the rates were
out of line and rejected the claim. With regard to review of
salary of a worker the Company agreed to check that the special
payment conceded to him in the last wage round is being paid. As
no further agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 3rd November,
1986. At a conciliation conference held on 2nd December, 1986,
the Union maintained their position of #10 per week on basic pay
in addition to a cost of living increase. The Company offered
the same increase in two phases, as agreed with other employees,
with no further cost increasing claims for the duration of a
twelve month agreement. As agreement could not be reached at
conciliation, it was agreed on 8th December, 1986, to refer the
issue of an increase in basic pay to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
20th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Company's offer on pay is totally inadequate having
regard to the low level of wages of the workers
concerned.
(b) The basic pay of the workers is out of line with that
paid to similar workers in comparable employments
(details supplied to the Court). The Union's claim was
made on the basis that it would correct the pay anomaly
which exists between the Company and similar
employments. It is felt that the basic pay rate should
be #140 per week however, the Union has agreed to
temper feelings with reality and claimed a lesser
amount.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) As part of its claim under the 24th round, the Union
pursued a similar claim for a basic pay increase on
the grounds that pay rates were low in comparison to
workers in similar employments. In it's
recommendation No. 9599, on this matter, the Court
did not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Contrary to the Union's view, the Company believe
that the rates paid compare favourably and cannot be
deemed out of line (details supplied to the Court).
(ii) Under the 24th round agreement, an increase of 7% was
paid by the Company and a further 6% under the 25th
round - both agreements running for twelve months
each. This represents an increase of 13.64% against
an increase in the C.P.I. of 8.7% over the same two
year period. In terms of the 26th round, the
Company's offer is more than reasonable and provides
all employees with a real increase in earnings
against a background of inflation running at 3.2% for
the year to mid November, 1986.
(iii) The Company must tender for the E.S.B. meter contract
without any prospect of a price increase given the
current competitive situation. It cannot expect to
pass on any increases in wage costs. Any increase
above the 6% already proposed will seriously
undermine the future of the Company's meter assembly
operation, and will result in consequential claims
from other groups of employees. This will result in
further costs that cannot be sustained in the current
economic climate.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
does not find justification for recommending concession of the
claim for "out of line" adjustment on basic rates. The Court
recommends that in relation to the 26th round claim the Company
offer and Union accept as follows:-
3% or #4 per week on basic (whichever is the greater) from 1/6/86
for 6 months and a further
3% or #4 per week on basic (whichever is the greater) from 1/12/86
agreement to expire on 31/5/87.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___4th____March,___1987. ____________________
B. O' N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman