Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87599 Case Number: LCR11450 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SWILLY CABINETS - and - ITGWU |
Claim for a wage increase under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. The Court recommends that the terms which emerged at the
conciliation conference be re-offered by the employer and accepted
by the workers in settlement of this dispute.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87599 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11450
CC87545 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11450
Parties: SWILLY CABINETS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for a wage increase under the 26th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company was formed in 1978 and manufactures custom built
kitchen, bedroom and hotel furniture. The claim concerns eight
workers,four permanent workers and four apprentices. The 25th
wage round terminated for the workers on 4th February, 1987. The
permanent workers have a weekly rate of pay of #133.66 and the
apprentices are being paid a percentage of the basic rate ranging
from 30% for a 1st year apprentice up to 80% for a 4th year
apprentice.
3. The Union claimed an 8% wage increase over twelve months with
no pay pause. The Company rejected the claim and proposed a six
month pay pause and a review of the situation then. This was
unacceptable to the Union. No agreement was reached through local
negotiations and on 2nd April, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference on 12th May, 1987 the parties agreed to recommend the
acceptance of the following terms:
(a) a three month pay pause from 5th February, 1987,
(b) 5% increase in basic rates from 5th May, 1987 for
twelve months,
(c) the agreement to terminate on 4th May, 1987,
(d) no further cost increasing claims for the duration of
the agreement.
However the workers rejected the proposals and on 15th July, 1987
the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Court. On 4th
August, 1987 the case was referred to the Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 9th
September, 1987 in Letterkenny.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Company has included a pay pause in a number of
recent wage rounds which makes it difficult for the
workers to accept a further pay pause. Since 1983 pay
pauses,inclusive of the one proposed for the 26th wage
round,comprises a total of fifteen months.
(ii) The workers should get a wage increase without any pay
pause. The Company appear to be making a habit of
including a pay pause in the wage round.
(iii) The dropping of the pay pause would be a positive step.
The Company could be distorting the picture in relation
to cost given that the apprentices, who make up 50% of
the workforce, are on a low basic rate.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company is showing the symptoms of a small employer
who has suffered greatly under the recession prevalent
in the construction industry. Its ability to compete
is threatened by the emergence of similar operators
operating under the black economy.
(b) It was with great difficulty that the Company agreed to
the proposals put to it at the conciliation and did so
only on the basis of the three month pay pause. The
Company was both extremely surprised and disappointed
at the members' rejection of the proposals.
(c) The Company's ability to meet percentage increase under
the proposals of May, 1987 were contingent on
improvements occurring in the market place and on the
order books filling up. This hasn't happened and
accordingly the proposals referred to must be
reappraised. The Company should not be committed to a
pay increase for a period of some months at which time
a realistic review could be undertaken.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court recommends that the terms which emerged at the
conciliation conference be re-offered by the employer and accepted
by the workers in settlement of this dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_____________________
Chairman
7th October, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.