Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87316 Case Number: LCR11455 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: REG ARMSTRONG LTD - and - ATGWU;ITGWU |
Claims under the 26th wage round for:- (a) reduction in the working week, (b) extension of the sick pay scheme, (c) extension of free Company doctor service, (d) introduction of a pension/mortality scheme.
Recommendation:
15. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends on the various claims as follows:
(a) Reduction in working hours.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
(b) The Court recommends that the terms of the sick pay
scheme be extended to workers with two years' service
or more.
(c) The Court recommends that the full cost of 2 visits to
the family doctor per annum be paid for.
(d) Having regard to the generally depressed condition of
the trade, the Court does not recommend the immediate
introduction of a pension scheme but is of the opinion
that the Compny should arrange for its introduction as
soon as its financial circumstances allow. On the
matter of mortality benefit the Court is of the opinion
and recommends that the Company should introduce such a
benefit within the next year.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87316 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11455
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11455
Parties: REG ARMSTRONG MOTORCYCLE LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims under the 26th wage round for:-
(a) reduction in the working week,
(b) extension of the sick pay scheme,
(c) extension of free Company doctor service,
(d) introduction of a pension/mortality scheme.
General Background:
2. The Company employs a total of thirty workers. The claims are
on behalf of eight workers, five of whom are employed in the
assembly area of the Company with the remaining three employed at
the stores and trade counter. The parties reached agreement on
the wage element of the 26th wage round but no agreement was
reached on the claims outlined in paragraph 1. The matters were
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court and a
conciliation conference was held on 2nd February, 1987, but no
agreement was reached. The Company would not agree to a reference
to the Court. On 8th April, 1987 the Unions referred the case to
the Labour Court for investigation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 25th May, 1987. Prior to the hearing the Unions undertook to
accept the recommendation of the Court.
Claim (a) reduction in the working week:
Background:
3. The Union is claiming a reduction in the working week from the
present forty hours to thirty seven and a half hours. The Company
rejected the claim and considered no change should be made.
Unions' arguments:
4. (i) Concession of the claim would bring the working hours
for the workers into line with those for clerical and
other management workers. There is discontentment at
local level because some sections have had a working
week of less than 40 hours for sometime.
(ii) It is 10 years since 40 hours became the norm. In
Britain at present, 70% of manual workers have less
than 40 hours per week. Also some wage councils have
recently recommended a reduction in the 40 hour week.
(iii) Full concession of the claim may not be achievable in
one wage round, however, the Company could work towards
a phasing in of 37.50 hours.
(iv) The Company has operated in line with the motor
industry in respect of its negotiations on wages and
conditions of employment, in the past. There have been
clear movements by companies in this industry to a less
than 40 hour working week (details supplied to the
Court).
Company's arguments:
5. (a) In the 26th wage round settlement concluded for the
motor industry there was no change agreed in the
working week from the present forty hour week. The
Unions were party to that settlement.
(b) If there were changes at national level or with the
motor industry the Company would respond. This is a
reasonable position.
Claim (b) extension of the sick pay scheme:
Background:
6. The Company operates a sick-pay scheme which gives the workers
their full pay for 4 weeks sick leave per annum. Social Welfare
payments made to the workers are returned to the Company. Workers
must have ten years' service with the Company to receive any
sick-pay. The Unions are claiming that the sick pay scheme should
be extended to cover 6 weeks sick absence per annum and that it
should also be extended to cover all the workers concerned. The
Company rejected the claim.
Unions' arguments:
7. (i) Six weeks sick pay is reasonable given that other
sections of the employment have unlimited sick absence
payments.
(ii) The Unions' claim for an extension to six week paid
sick absence does not have a high cost factor and is
easily costed as against the open ended scheme in the
clerical and management areas.
(iii) There are only two workers in the Company excluded from
the sick pay scheme. Both of these have more than
three years' service and given that all new entrants
into the clerical area are eligible for sick pay it is
unwarranted for the Company to exclude these two
workers.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) Most firms do not have sick leave at all for workers.
(b) Workers tend to avail of the full four weeks in the
year which seems to be abnormal sick leave.
(c) If the scheme was extended the Company feels it would
be availed of in full as it is not necessary to produce
doctors certificates for short periods of sick time
off.
Claim (c) extension of free Company doctor service:
Background:
9. The Company operates a free Company doctor service for
clerical and management workers to cover surgery visits. The
Unions are claiming that this service be extended to the workers
concerned. The Company rejected this claim and offered to pay
half the cost of two surgery visits to their family doctor per
year.
Unions' arguments:
10. (i) It is unreasonable of the Company to have a facility
that only some workers can avail of.
(ii) Concession of the Unions' claim would not put a heavy
financial burden on the Company.
Company's arguments:
11. (a) The Company's offer is reasonable and should be
accepted.
Claim (d) introduction of a pension/mortality scheme:
Background:
12. The Company operates a pension scheme for its management
workers. The Unions are claiming the introduction of a
pension/mortality scheme for the workers. The Company rejected
the claim.
Unions' arguments:
13. (i) The Company is obliged and has a moral responsibility
to provide some cover for its workers.
(ii) A mortality scheme should be established to cover the
workers in the event of "Death in Service."
(iii) The workers will face a serious situation if they are
forced to retire in the future without the benefits
that a pension would give.
(iv) It is a total contradiction for the Company on one hand
to ignore the position of our members, while they
themselves enjoy the benefits of a Company run pension
scheme.
Company's arguments:
14. (a) The Company cannot introduce a pension scheme for all
its workers as it would be very expensive.
(b) The State provides a pension scheme which is reasonable
and our firm provides for this by way of P.R.S.I.,
contribution for each worker.
(c) The Company is agreeable to arrange for a pension
scheme representative to call to our offices and
discuss personal plans with each individual, if they
are interested, including the clerical staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
15. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends on the various claims as follows:
(a) Reduction in working hours.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
(b) The Court recommends that the terms of the sick pay
scheme be extended to workers with two years' service
or more.
(c) The Court recommends that the full cost of 2 visits to
the family doctor per annum be paid for.
(d) Having regard to the generally depressed condition of
the trade, the Court does not recommend the immediate
introduction of a pension scheme but is of the opinion
that the Compny should arrange for its introduction as
soon as its financial circumstances allow. On the
matter of mortality benefit the Court is of the opinion
and recommends that the Company should introduce such a
benefit within the next year.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
9th October, 1987.
T.0'M/J.C.