Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87260 Case Number: LCR11204 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HANIMEX LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim under the 26th wage round on behalf of approximately 120 workers for (a) 12% increase on basic pay over 12 months and (b) an improvement on the attendance bonus scheme.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this Company the Court is of the view
that the offer made in relation to the 26th round is reasonable
and should be accepted. The Court also recommends that the
attendance bonus be paid on a daily basis for a trial period of 12
months when its effect on attendance should be examined.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87260 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11204
CC861775 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11204
Parties: HANIMEX (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim under the 26th wage round on behalf of approximately
120 workers for (a) 12% increase on basic pay over 12 months and
(b) an improvement on the attendance bonus scheme.
Background:
2. The Company was set up in Cork in 1976 and is part of the
Hanimex Corporation of Australia. The Company is engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of photographic equipment and
consumer goods. The 25th wage round expired on 31st August, 1986.
The Union lodged the above mentioned claims with the Company. In
response the Company made no offer and sought a four month pay
pause up to the end of January, 1987, when the current financial
state of the Company would be clearer and they would then be in a
better position to negotiate. This was rejected by the Union and
the issue was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 28th October, 1986. Conciliation conferences were held
on 27th November, 1986 and 13th March, 1987, following which the
Company made the following offer: a 13 month agreement providing
for an increase of 4% from 1st September, 1986 with a further 2%
from 1st March, 1987. This offer was rejected by the Union
following a secret ballot of the workers concerned. Both parties
agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Cork on 29th April,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned are paid a very low basic rate of
pay (details supplied to the Court). Increases over
the past number of years have not kept in line with
inflation, and with the increases in taxation have led
to a decline in the living standards of the workers.
(b) The workers do not enjoy any special payments such as
bonus or profit sharing schemes. They rely solely on
wage round settlements to try to bring their wages into
line with industries situated in the Cork region, which
pay much higher basic rates that the Company.
(c) The terms of the attendance bonus scheme have not
changed since it was introduced in 1983. The payment
of #2 a week for a full 40 hours attendance is no
longer an incentive. In order to make this scheme in
any way meaningful, the terms would have to be
renegotiated, but, for the present the Union are
claiming that the amount should be doubled and paid on
a daily rather than a weekly basis.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) Because of the continuing losses (details supplied to
the Court) the Company is heavily reliant on the
parent Company. In these circumstances the pay
proposal which has been made is viewed as being a
very generous one.
(ii) The Company was established as a slide projector
manufacturing facility. This market has been in
decline and forecasts indicate that this trend will
continue. This creates enormous difficulties for the
Company as it does not have a big domestic market
available and it has no scope to respond to price
cutting by overseas competitors.
(iii) The present Company activity is very vulnerable
because while volume contracts can be obtained they
do not give the Company a prospect of financial
security.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this Company the Court is of the view
that the offer made in relation to the 26th round is reasonable
and should be accepted. The Court also recommends that the
attendance bonus be paid on a daily basis for a trial period of 12
months when its effect on attendance should be examined.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
22nd_May,______1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.