Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87498 Case Number: LCR11426 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GESTETNER (I) LTD - and - ITGWU;ITGWU |
Claim for an increase in pay under the 27th wage round and various other claims.
Recommendation:
12.1. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the
Court, having regard to the difficult circumstances in which the
Company is presently trading recommends that the Company amends
its offer to provide for an increase of 4% with effect from 1st
July in respect of an agreement to terminate 30th June, 1988.
The Court further recommends that the parties begin direct
negotiations on the other issues before it without further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87498 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11426
CC87670 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11426
Parties: GESTETNER (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for an increase in pay under the 27th wage round and
various other claims.
Background:
2. Gestetner Limited is engaged in the supply and distribution of
office equipment, it employs a total of 68 people in the Republic
of Ireland. The Union, on behalf of the workers, served the
following claims on the Company;
(a) A 10% increase in salaries for twelve (12) months.
(b) Deduction at Source of Union Contributions.
(c) Increase in Technicians Meal Allowance as per L.C.R.
7579.
(d) Assimilation of five (5) clerical members to their
proper salary scales.
(e) Application of proper rate to two stores members.
(f) Stores driver job to be made permanent.
(g) Appointment of temporary store-man to permanency.
(h) Driver of Company van to be allowed domestic facility
of Company vehicle.
(i) Temporary staff to receive same conditions and benefits
as full-time permanent staff.
Claims outlined under (a)-(c) above apply to both Dublin and Cork
members, while claims under (d)-(i) which predate the current wage
round, refer to Dublin members only. The 26th wage round expired
on 1st April, 1986. On the 2nd and 19th February the Union
requested a conference to discuss the 27th Wage Round and to have
further discussions on the other items. A meeting was held on 2nd
April at which the Union detailed the 27th Round claim. A further
meeting was held on 27th April at which an offer of 3% for 15
months inclusive of 3 months pay pause was made by the Company and
rejected by the Union. No offer was made in respect of any other
claim. On 24th April, 1987, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 19th June, 1987 the earliest date
convenient for the parties. No agreement was reached on the
issues, and on 19th June, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A Court hearing took
place in Dublin on 13th August, 1987, the earliest date suitable
to both parties.
Claim A - A 10% increase in salary for twelve (12) months.
3.1. Union's arguments:
As a general statement, the Union wishes to place its
claims within their proper context. With the exception
of the percentage increase, which is a major cost
consideration for both the workers and the Company, all
other items carry very minor or no tangible cost
implications. Of these, one has already been the
subject of a Labour Court Recommendation another is a
standard feature of most employments (deduction at
source). Most of the claims are items which should be
capable of being disposed of in-house, and in most
companies would be sorted out under the heading of
house-keeping. Regrettably, this Company appears to be
incapable of dealing locally with even the most minor
of claims, hence the referral to the Court. On the
individual claims the Union wishes to make the
following points.
On the issue of the pay claim, the Union wishes to state the
following:
The Union believes that a 12 month period is an
adequate duration for a wage agreement and research
figures for the current round show 80% of all
settlements falling into this category. Similarly of
the total number of settlements surveyed in the Wage
Round to date (107) only two have pay pauses, and in
both cases compensation was paid in lieu.
With regard to the amount of increase payable, research
data to hand shows an average increase of 5.4% over 13
months within this wage round with 70% of settlements
providing for single phase increases in line with this
average. However, given the low wages and salaries
paid to the worker they can justifiably argue for an
increase above the norm.
Moreover, the Union wishes to point out that since 1980
the workers have accepted below norm or very moderate
pay settlements and have also co-operated by taking on
extra work at no additional payment. For this reason
also the Union believes its members are entitled not
only to an increase of 10% but also to have their other
claims met.
3.2. Company's argument:
There is little basis for the claim of 10% as submitted
by the trade union. The Company cannot afford
excessive increases and has made a reasonable offer of
a 3% increase for a twelve month period, preceded by a
three month pay pause, i.e. in total a fifteen month
agreement from 1st April, 1987. In the light of the
requirement to contain expenditure, the Company feels
that a 3% increase represents a fair offer. It might
be noted that the Company has always attempted to pay
reasonable pay increases despite financial
difficulties. Last year, a 6% increase was applied,
and a 7% increase was paid in the previous pay round
(details supplied with the Court). It might noted that
the 3% offer exceeds the present inflation rate
(running at 2.8%). In the present economic climate,
there is little justification for pay increases in
excess of 3% and this company shares F.U.E.'s view that
only in very exceptional circumstances do not exist
within this Company at the present time.
Bearing in mind present market conditions and the
Company's performance in recent years, together with
the urgent requirement to generate acceptable profit
levels, the Company feels that its proposal of a
general pay increase of 3% is reasonable and should be
accepted as such by the trade union.
Claim B - Deduction at source
4.1. Union's arguments:
The merits of this claim are self evident, and have
been conceded by the Court on many occasions (details
with the Labour Court). The Union wishes also draw to
attention to the June, 1973 Employer Labour Conference
Recommendation on the introduction of D.A.S. (details
with the Court). Under the 26th wage round
negotiations, Management agreed to bring in D.A.S., on
computerisation of the payroll. It was the workers'
understanding that this was to happen during the
currency of the 26th round. To date, months into the
27th Round, it has not happened. Furthermore, the
workers who are the people who would have to operate
the system anyway, can see no reason why D.A.S. could
not be run on a "manual" system. The Union is
therefore, in line with the above, seeking the
recommendation of the Court that the Company introduce
D.A.S. without any further delay.
4.2. Company's arguments:
It was agreed in 1986, as part of the 26th pay round
proposals, that the Company would re-examine this
question at a future date when the wages payment system
is computerised. The Company feels that this should
not be raised by the union at this stage bearing in
mind the settlement terms reached in 1986.
Claim C - Increase in Technicians Meal Allowance - L.C.R.7579
5.1. Union's arguments:
In October, 1982, the Union sought an increase in the
daily meal allowance paid to field-technicians against
the background of the then rate of #2.50 per day not
having been adjusted for two years. The Court in
L.C.R. 7579 recommended an increase to #3.25. In the
event, Management refused to honour the recommendation.
Therefore to date the technician members meal allowance
has not been adjusted for seven (7) years, while
inflation in the intervening period has rendered it
virtually valueless. The Union should be seeking the
full restoration of its value. For the period of this
round however, the workers are willing to settle for
the application of the above Labour Court
Recommendation.
5.2. Company's argument:
The Company continues to hold the view that present
arrangements for meals are reasonable, and does not see
justification for improving same in the present
climate.
Claim D - Assimilation of five (5) clerical members to their
proper salary scales
6.1. Union's argument:
The Union has sought that 5 workers be placed on their
proper scale. This involves the upgrading of 3 workers
from the Basic to the Senior scale, and the positioning
of two workers who are currently off or below scale
onto the Base and Senior/Computer scales respectively.
Specifically the claims are as follows:
Worker A Job Current Proposed
Computer Operator #86.00 p.w. pt 1 of Senior/Computer
Scale i.e. #143.90 p.w.
Worker A is a computer operator with 18 months service and that
fact alone qualifies him for upgrading to the higher scale. He
has only recently been brought up from the scandalously low rate
of #66 per week to the figure of #86 which is below even the
minimum point of the junior or base scale!
Worker B Clerical #110 p.w. pt 9 of Base Scale i.e.
#142.73 per week.
Worker B has approximately ten years service and should have been
progressing automatically up the Base scale on an annual basis.
The fact that she has not, is anomolous in the extreme, and the
Union is seeking her immediate assimilation to the top point of
her scale.
Job Current Proposed
Worker C Personal Assistant #137 p.w. Senior Scale
to Technical Manager
Worker D Spare parts controller #137 p.w. Senior Scale
Worker E Service Dept Admin #142.73 p.w. Senior Scale
(i.e. pt 9 of Base)
With regard to the above, all of whom occupy senior and highly
responsible positions in Gestetner (Ireland) Ltd, the Union has
indicated its willingness to negotiate an agreed assimilation onto
the Senior Scale.
The Union would also point out to the Court that the above claims
arise from full discussion with our members and no other
individual claims have come forward.
6.2. Company's argument:
The Company is of the view that it cannot possibly deal
with individual increases in this manner, while
suggesting a 3% pay increase across the board to staff
in general. However, it is proposed to refer briefly
to the cases raised by the union.
(1) Worker A - Since discussions commenced with the
union the worker has accepted a permanent position
with the Company. He was offered an increase in
pay to #4,500 from a level of #3,500, and accepted
same. He is not on any particular scale and the
Company is of the view that present arrangements
are reasonable.
(2) Worker B - The Company is firmly of the view that
no special increase is merited in this case.
Worker B is not on any particular scale, but the
Company feels that her present rate of pay is a
fair reflection of her contribution to the Company.
(3) Worker C - In 1979, Worker C applied for a post
advertised internally as Personnel Assistant to the
Technical Services Manager. She was offered, and
accepted, the rate for the job (then #70) in the
clear knowledge that no incremental increases would
apply. Since 1979, Worker C received all pay
awards that have applied within Gestetner Limited.
(4) Worker D - Worker D is paid the same rate as other
stores people and the Company does not see
justification for treating this case as a special
case.
(5) Worker E - Worker E is presently on the top point
of the clerical scale and the company cannot see
any justification in the present circumstances for
improving or amending the scale. Such a measure
would be entirely inconsistent with attempts to
curtail expenditure.
Claim E - Application of proper rate to two stores members
7.1. Union's argument:
This claim concerns two workers employed in central
stores in Dublin. The stores rate in Dublin is #148.33
excluding service pay (details supplied to the Court).
Both claimants are seeking the application of this full
rate.
Currently
Worker F - Stores/Forklift - #137.90
Worker G - Stores/Driver - #138.21
There is no justification whatsoever for a variation in
rates within the Dublin stores where staff are required
to be, and are interchangeable, in the stores
functions, fork-lift driving, and van driving, and the
rate of above workers should be increased forthwith.
7.2. Company argument:
The Company feels that the rate currently being paid to
these individuals is adequate and appropriate.
Claim F - Stores driver job to be made permanent
8.1. Union's argument:
For the last two years, this position has been occupied
by a series of temporary staff, due to the illness and
subsequent death of the previous permanent driver and
the refusal of Management to fill the post permanently.
Management has continued in its refusal on the grounds
that another of the Union's stores members has been out
sick for some years.
This worker was not a driver, but a stores assistant
and the Union believes that Management is only using
this member's misfortune to avoid giving permanent
employment and paying the full rate. The Union is
therefore seeking that this job be filled permanently.
8.2. Company argument:
The Union has sought that certain temporary staff
members be made permanent. The Company feels that this
move would be imprudent. There are no permanent
vacancies at present. One staff member is on long term
illness. The Company feels it cannot offer permanent
employment in a climate where all functions and
operations are being vigorously examined. It will of
course continue to monitor the status of employees on
an on-going basis.
Claim G - Appointment of temporary storeman to permanency
9.1. Union's argument:
Worker F has been a "temporary" stores employee of
Gestetner for approximately two years. The "temporary"
nature of his employment has been extended beyond what
would be regard as reasonable or acceptable. Moreover,
Management has used the "temporary" nature of his
employment to deny him the full stores rate even though
he fulfils all the functions of a permanent member of
staff. In the Union's view Worker F should be made
permanent forthwith without prejudice to the right of
the other worker on long-term sickness to his "old"
job. The Union is confident that a satisfactory
solution would be arrived at to accommodate all, should
the other worker return.
9.2. Company's argument:
The Company is not prepared to make permanent
appointments at the moment, because of the situation in
the workplace (see argument 8.2.).
Claim H - Driver of Company's Van to be allowed domestic
facility of the Company Vehicle
10.1. Union's argument:
Up until the death of the last permanent driver, stores
van-drivers always took the Company van home at
evenings and weekends as is the case in Cork and
Galway. The Management unilaterally ceased this
established right and the Union is now seeking the
Court's recommendation that stores van drivers in
Dublin, regardless of status, be allowed the same
rights as their colleagues in Cork and Galway and
indeed as all other holders of Company vehicles.
10.2. Company's argument:
The Company is not prepared to accede to this request
for security and insurance reasons. Domestic use of
the Company van was never a condition of employment and
it is not acceptable to rely on previous arrangements
as a basis for this claim. The driver who enjoyed this
facility in the past had previously worked for the
Company as a salesman and had company transport in that
position. The Company attempted to facilitate him on
his transfer to driving duties. This action cannot be
used a precedent for this claim.
Claim I - Temporary Staff to receive same conditions and
benefits as full-time permanent staff
11.1. Union's argument:
The situations alluded to above have highlighted the
discrepancy between the conditions of employment for
temporary and full-time staff. The Union is simply
seeking the Court's recommendation that temporary staff
be recruited on the same wages, benefits etc as
permanent staff relative to age, experience, service
etc, and not used as a source of "cheap labour" who are
expected to perform the same work as permanent staff.
This claim has the support of all the Union's permanent
staff members.
11.2. Company's argument:
The introduction of a formal Sick Pay Scheme was
considered by both parties last year but it was decided
by the Union side that the discretionary scheme, as it
applied, was perhaps more favourable and the claim was
dropped. The Company exercises its discretion in
relation to full time employees and is not prepared to
extend same to temporary staff. It might be noted that
the formal scheme that was offered to the union also
related to full time staff only.
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the
Court, having regard to the difficult circumstances in which the
Company is presently trading recommends that the Company amends
its offer to provide for an increase of 4% with effect from 1st
July in respect of an agreement to terminate 30th June, 1988.
The Court further recommends that the parties begin direct
negotiations on the other issues before it without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
5th October, 1987
P.F./J.C.