Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87718 Case Number: LCR11514 Section / Act: S67 Parties: STUDIO EYEWEAR LTD - and - ITGWU;ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 130 general operatives for a wage increase plus improvements in conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Union should accept the 4%
increase in pay over a period of twelve months offered by the
Company and also the mortality benefit offered.
The Court also recommends that the Company should provide for
minimum V.H.I. cover for the claimants as from 1st January, 1988.
The Union should agree to defer its other claims in the present
circumstances.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87718 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11514
CC871024 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11514
PARTIES: STUDIO EYEWEAR LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (CLARE COUNTY BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 130 general operatives for a
wage increase plus improvements in conditions of employment.
Background:
2. The 26th round for the workers concerned expired on the 31st
March, 1987. The Union lodged a claim under the 27th round for
the following -
- pay increase of #15 per week
- access to the Company VHI Scheme
- pension scheme
- casual leave days.
At a local level meeting on the 26th June, the Company rejected
the claim and offered an increase of 4% and an extension of the
mortality benefit from one to two years. This was unacceptable to
the Union and the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. No progress was made at a conciliation
conference held in Ennis on the 3rd September (earliest suitable
date) and on the 24th September the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Limerick on the 13th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) There is widespread resentment among the claimants at
the extent of the differential between themselves and
their supervisors who, apart from their higher rates
of pay, enjoy a Company pension scheme, free V.H.I.
scheme, four additional leave days per annum, and a
better sick pay scheme. The workers involved in this
claim have none of these benefits.
(b) Despite the fire at the Company's plant in April,
1986, overall production has been maintained as some
of it was diverted to the Company's other production
factories in Malta, Switzerland and Germany. The
re-commissioned plating plant will be ready for
operation in January, 1988, and should undoubtedly
make a very significant contribution to its overall
performance.
(c) The Company has resisted the claim on the grounds that
three other sections of the workforce have already
agreed to 4% and that concession of a higher
percentage in this claim would lead to repercussive
claims. The Union rejects this as being totally
unfair and discriminating vis-a-vis the claimants as
the groups referred to are small in number.
(d) During the Labour Court hearing on the previous wage
round claim, one of the Court members queried why the
gap between general operatives and supervisors was
allowed to become so wide. The claimants would gladly
settle for a uniform pay increase if they enjoyed some
of the privileges which now apply to Management.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company had a fire at its premises in Ennis in
April, 1986. The cause of this fire was traced to an
electrical fault in the plating plant which had been
installed in the early part of 1985. The damage and
consequences of the fire have been very severe for the
Company. The installation of the new plating plant
has been delayed and until it is installed the Company
will not be able to return to full operation. The
consequences of the fire can be summarised as follows
-
- the factory is only working at 55% of its capacity.
The Company had originally intended that it would
produce 18,000 metal frames per week. When the
plating plant is installed the Company will be
producing 10,000 finished frames per week.
- there have been extensive lay-offs. Currently 15
people from the Finishing Section are still on
lay-off. The Company has had a further 13
redundancies during this year.
- the Company in Ennis has suffered, in that work
that would have originally been allocated by the
parent Company to the Ennis factory, has been
re-allocated to other plants in Europe within the
same Company. This will continue to be the case
until such time as the plating plant is up and
running.
- the Company made substantial losses in 1986 and
will do so again in 1987. This loss is not
confined simply to financial losses, but the
Company has lost substantial market share, due to
its inability to supply its markets. Even when the
plating plant has been re-installed, the Company
will have a lot of hard work to do in order to
regain its markets.
(b) The craft, supervisory and clerical/administrative
sections have already agreed to accept a 4% wage
increase over twelve months. There has been an
established practice of applying the same increases to
all sections in the Company in each wage round and
Management does not envisage departing from this
practice.
(c) The Union alleges that the gap between the general
categories and the Supervisory categories is widening
every year. However, the Union has consistently
argued for standard increases. Therefore, percentage
increases have been applied to each category year by
year, and therefore in percentage terms the gap
between the categories has remained static. Naturally
with the application of a uniform percentage increase,
the monetary increase will be higher for those on
higher rates of pay than for those on lower rates of
pay. The only manner in which the Company could
successfully negotiate a flat increase, would be to
negotiate with all sections together. However, all
sections have consistently refused to enter into joint
negotiations, but have wished to negotiate separately.
(d) The Company is of the view that those acting in a
supervisory capacity have entitlements to higher rates
of pay and more favourable conditions of employment
than those which apply to the general categories.
This has been negotiated by the Union on behalf of the
supervisory section with this Company down through the
years.
(e) In the context of an increase in the cost of living of
2.8% in the preceding 12 months, the Company believes
strongly that its offer of 4% is more than fair and
reasonable.
/....
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Union should accept the 4%
increase in pay over a period of twelve months offered by the
Company and also the mortality benefit offered.
The Court also recommends that the Company should provide for
minimum V.H.I. cover for the claimants as from 1st January, 1988.
The Union should agree to defer its other claims in the present
circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th November, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman