Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87611 Case Number: LCR11448 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TOYOTA (I) LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for the extension of a service pay scheme to nine workers.
Recommendation:
7. The Court recommends that the existing service pay scheme
subject to the limitation of a maximum payment at 10 years be
extended to the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87611 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11448
CC87985 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11448
Parties: TOYOTA (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
DUBLIN NO. 14 BRANCH
Subject:
1. Claim for the extension of a service pay scheme to nine
workers.
Background:
2. The Union has twenty-five members in the Company's site in
Clondalkin, Dublin. In September, 1983 a productivity flexibility
agreement was made between the Union and the Company (details
supplied to the Court). Also agreed was the introduction of a
service pay scheme which provided for #1.00 per week after 2
years' service and 50p per week for each additional year of
service. This was paid to twelve workers in the stores and two
office workers.
3. The Union is now seeking the extension of this scheme to nine
workers: six compound workers; one office worker; one canteen
worker and a storeman (approximately four do not have the required
service as yet). The Company is prepared to discuss the
introduction of a service pay scheme but one in line with industry
generally, which would give:
0 - 5 years Nil
5 - 10 years #0.50
10 - 15 years #1.00
15 - 20 years #1.50
over 20 years #2.00
4. On 23rd June, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 5th August, 1987 (earliest date suitable) and as no agreement
could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 28th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The existing service pay scheme is not part of the
overall productivity/flexibility agreement of 1983
(details supplied to the Court). The service pay
scheme was negotiated separately and before the
agreement. The 1983 document contained three separate
elements: an interim pay award; a service pay scheme;
and a productivity/flexibility agreement.
(ii) The Union understood that all future members would be
covered by the service pay scheme. In 1984 after its
introduction the Union succeeded in getting the scheme
applied to another office worker and following this, a
female office worker was also brought into the scheme
as a result of an Equality Officer's investigation.
(iii) While the Company have offered an alternative scheme,
the Union is of the opinion that the existence of two
schemes for workers in the same Company is
impracticable. It is reasonable that all workers
should be brought into the existing service pay scheme.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The service pay scheme for stores workers was
introduced as part of a composite set of proposals
which form the productivity/flexibility agreement of
1983 (details supplied to the Court). The terms of
this agreement are special to the stores and service
pay is an integral part of it. The pay elements of the
scheme were not the usual features of such a scheme and
concession of the claim would dilute the unique
position of the stores scheme.
(b) In the context of the current wage round, the Union
originally claimed parity of rates for compound workers
with stores workers. However, after negotiations the
Union agreed on a different rate to the stores (the
compound rate is lower). The Union is not therefore
being consistent in seeking parity on service pay.
(c) The Company is prepared to introduce a service pay
scheme for the workers and the proposals on this
reflect the normal type of scheme operating in industry
generally. They also reflect proposals at conciliation
and are in line with Labour Court recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court recommends that the existing service pay scheme
subject to the limitation of a maximum payment at 10 years be
extended to the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
5th October, 1987.
U.M./J.C.