Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87688 Case Number: LCR11461 Section / Act: S67 Parties: INT. CONTRACT CLEANERS - and - ITGWU |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 29 full-time and part-time workers, for an increase under the 26th Wage Round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company should renew its
offer made on 24th April last, (as set out on page 2 of their
submission), amended as follows -
(1) A once-off payment of #300 in lieu of retrospection for
the period 1st June, 1986, to 30th September 1987,
(2) basic wage to be increased by #8 per week from 1st
October, 1987, and
(3) a further increase of #5 per week to apply from 1st May,
1988, to 30th November, 1988.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87688 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11461
CC87175 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11461
PARTIES: INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT CLEANERS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 29 full-time and
part-time workers, for an increase under the 26th Wage Round.
Background:
2. The workers concerned are engaged in the cleaning of
rail-coaches at Heuston Station. The work is carried out at night
between 10.00 p.m. and 6.30 a.m. seven days per week. At the
commencement of the 26th Wage Round on 1st June, 1986, the Union
lodged a claim for an #11 per week increase. The Company proposed
an increase of #7 per week, which was tied in with the tightening
of certain management controls, on staffing levels, number of days
to be worked and holiday arrangements. The Company maintained
that this was a reasonable offer in view of the increases given
under the preceding two wage rounds (approximately 38%) and also
because the client, Irish Rail, advised that they would not accept
any increase in contract price. The Union rejected the Company's
proposal and advised that it would only discuss management
controls or any other matter after the 26th wage round was
settled. On 27th January, 1987, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference on 10th April, 1987, the Company withdrew its original
offer and indicated that any new offer would be effective only
from a current date. The Company further indicated that it wished
an agreement to cover the period up to the end of 1987. Whilst
this proposal was not acceptable to the Union, it did undertake to
consider the possibility of an extension in the duration of any
agreement. On 24th April, 1987, the Company amended its offer as
follows -
- A once off payment of #175 would be paid in lieu of
retrospection for the period 1st June, 1986, to 30th
April, 1987.
- Basic wage to be increased by #8 per week from 1st May,
1987.
- A further increase of #5 per week would apply from 1st
December, 1987, to 1st July, 1988.
- Manning levels of sixteen per night to apply.
- Inspection to remain as is.
- Employees to work five days per week.
- Holidays to be taken and not worked.
- Each second weekend must be worked.
- Manning levels of sixteen to apply on Bank Holidays.
- Management reserves the right to change nights off to
suit the roster.
- Cover Money - i.e. payment to men on foot of absenteeism
to be reduced in line with reduction of men.
The amended offer was rejected by the Union and on 23rd July,
1987, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
25th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Whilst wage increases over the last number of years
have compensated for the high level of inflation, it
must be acknowledged that gross wage increases have
been reduced considerably by income tax, PRSI, and
other deductions. Indeed, many Government
spokespersons have acknowledged that the living
standards of workers have been considerably eroded.
It is not unreasonable for the workers to wish to make
up part of the loss suffered, ensuring the maintenance
of purchasing power and restoration of living
standards.
(b) The Company's decision to withdraw their original
offer from the table and the consequential pause that
this creates is unacceptable to the workers concerned.
Research indicates that up to the end of July, 1987,
pay settlements in private sector companies, under the
26th wage round, provided for an average annualised
increase of 5.8%. Over four-fifth's of the agreements
were of 12 months duration.
(c) The workers concerned have demonstrated a very
responsible approach to the settlement of this
dispute. This has been established by their patience
in putting-up with the delays in settling this matter
and must be seen as a positive response in recognising
the climate in which the negotiations have taken
place.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The previous Company offer stands withdrawn. That
offer was made on the basis that it was conditional on
concessions by the staff. Since the Company has not
had the benefit of savings, it cannot be expected to
apply any increases retrospectively. The Company's
present offer is as follows -
- Basic wage to be increased by #8 per week from 1st
October, 1987.
- A further #5 per week would apply from 1st May,
1988, to 30th November, 1988.
- Manning levels of fifteen per night to apply.
- Inspection to remain as is.
- Employees to work five days per week.
- Holidays to be taken not worked.
- Each second weekend must be worked.
- Manning levels of fifteen to apply on Bank
Holidays.
- Management reserves the right to change nights off
to suit the roster.
- Bearing in mind the reduction in complement to
fifteen, the Company propose the following cover
money arrangements -
fifteen in attendance - nil
fourteen " " - #1.30 per man
thirteen " " - #2.60 per man
twelve " " - #4.00 per man
(At present the cover money arrangements are as
follows -
eighteen in attendance - nil
seventeen " " - nil
sixteen " " - #1.30 per man
fifteen " " - #2.60 per man
fourteen " " - #4.00 per man
thirteen " " - #6.00 per man)
The Company regards this proposal as fair and
reasonable, involving concessions on both sides.
(ii) The Company estimates that the remuneration package of
its staff on this contract is the highest available
throughout the industry at the present time. The
Company is currently losing on this contract and these
losses cannot be underwritten from general funds. It
is essential that there is cost constraint at Heuston
Station otherwise there is a real danger of losing the
particular contract to companies who will pay their
staff lower rates.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company should renew its
offer made on 24th April last, (as set out on page 2 of their
submission), amended as follows -
(1) A once-off payment of #300 in lieu of retrospection for
the period 1st June, 1986, to 30th September 1987,
(2) basic wage to be increased by #8 per week from 1st
October, 1987, and
(3) a further increase of #5 per week to apply from 1st May,
1988, to 30th November, 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman