Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87149 Case Number: LCR11155 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GOULDINGS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of thirty full time and forty part-time general operatives, for a wage increase under the 26th wage round plus improvements in conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties it seems
clear to the Court that the Company's ability to concede increases
is limited in present market conditions.
In the circumstances therefore, the Court recommends that the
Company concede an increase of 4% with effect from 30th March,
1987 and the discussions begin without delay on the
re-organisation necessary for the Company to retain its
competitiveness and make further wage concessions.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87149 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11155
CC87116 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11155
Parties: GOULDINGS CHEMICALS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of thirty full time and forty part-time
general operatives, for a wage increase under the 26th wage round
plus improvements in conditions of employment.
Background:
2. The 25th round for the workers concerned expired on the 30th
June, 1986, and at a local level meeting on the 6th November,
1986, the Union lodged the following claim:
- an increase of 10% for twelve months in one phase,
- an increase in service pay to include a new band at
thirty years service,
- additional annual leave,
- an increase for all existing pensioners,
- a review of the payroll pension scheme to include
consolidation of a contributory scheme.
At a further conference on the 11th December, Management rejected
these claims but stated that it could perhaps consider a wage
increase if certain cost-cutting measures were accepted by the
workforce. By letter dated the 15th December, Management outlined
its proposals for cost-cutting, the main areas of which were the
following:
- reducing the manning levels on the packing line from
22 to 17,
- engineers helpers and stores, where at present nine
operators are employed, could be reduced to two,
- the four heavy vehicle drivers to be used in a more
flexible capacity.
At a further conference on the 19th December, the Union rejected
Management's proposals and amended its claim as follows:
- 8% increase in pay for twelve months,
- payment for Christmas Eve at average earnings,
- increase in service pay for existing bands.
This was rejected by Management and as no progress could be made
at local level, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 21st January, 1987. A
conciliation conference on the 19th February, 1987 failed to
resolve the matter and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held in Cork on the 25th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The claim for a wage increase is a very modest one given
that the vast majority of the workers concerned are on a
basic wage of only #140.44 per week (grade 3).
(b) The Union made it clear to the Company, from the outset,
that any changes in manning levels or work practices
could only be effected in the context of an Irish
Productivity Centre (IPC) report commissioned by the
Company for that purpose, which was given to the parties
in June, 1985 (copy of report submitted to the Court).
Basically this report involved the introduction of new
machinery and changes in manning levels which would have
resulted in a substantial loss of earnings for the
workers concerned. The Company accepted that the staff
would have to be compensated for these losses and the IPC
report was intended to address itself, inter alia, to
this issue. However, the Company suspended negotiations
when they were at an advanced stage.
(c) Because of the subsequent reduction in earnings from
bonus, tonnage, etc, the proposals put forward by the
Company in December, 1986, would have resulted in
substantial losses by the workers concerned as well as a
greatly increased workload for which the Company produced
no evidence that it could be achieved. In any case, the
Union is only prepared to discuss changes as proposed by
the Company in the context of the IPC report. In
addition, as the period the Company were seeking the
"temporary" changes has now passed, the question does not
arise.
(d) The claim to have the service pay doubled would only
bring it into line with what is being paid by one of the
Company's main competitors (details supplied to the
Court).
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company is engaged in the production of fertilisers
for the farming community. It has to compete with other
Irish producers who have considerable cost advantages
due to their location, modern plant and lower manning
levels per ton produced. The depressed state of the
farming sector has led to substantially reduced prices
for fertiliser products. The Company has no alternative
but to maintain price competitiveness in the market if
it is to retain its market share.
(ii) While cost competitiveness is of immediate and growing
concern, it is a subject that will require attention at
another time. In the meantime, however, it is essential
that present costs be contained at their existing
levels. That is why the Company has been unable to
consider a pay increase other than in the context of a
self financing arrangement.
(iii) It is relatively simple for competitors to import
materials at any port in the country and to immediately
bag it on mobile equipment, for sale at very competitive
prices due to comparatively low labour costs. Very few
employees are required for this kind of operation.
(iv) The ability of the Company to concede any wage
adjustment on the basis proposed in its letter of 15th
December, 1986 is not now possible. Any real savings
which the Company could achieve can only be realised
during the peak production season. This season is
drawing to an end.
(v) The Company requests the Court to reject the Union's
claims and to support the Company's approach to these
pay negotiations in the light of the serious trading
conditions prevailing.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties it seems
clear to the Court that the Company's ability to concede increases
is limited in present market conditions.
In the circumstances therefore, the Court recommends that the
Company concede an increase of 4% with effect from 30th March,
1987 and the discussions begin without delay on the
re-organisation necessary for the Company to retain its
competitiveness and make further wage concessions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
1st May, 1987 ----------------
DH/PG Deputy Chairman