Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87624 Case Number: LCR11391 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CARTON BROTHERS - and - ITGWU |
Wage increase plus changes in working conditions under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the proposals which emanated from conciliation and which are
set out in the letter dated the 11th June, 1987, are reasonable
and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87624 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11391
CC87784 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11391
Parties: CARTON BROTHERS
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (DUNDALK BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Wage increase plus changes in working conditions under the
26th wage round.
Background:
2. The 25th round for the workers concerned expired on the 31st
March, 1987. At a local level meeting on the 27th April, the
Union sought a 10% pay increase for a twelve month period. This
was rejected by Management which proposed changing the starting
time for the first starters from 8.40 a.m. to 7.00 a.m. and that
all other starting times be advanced accordingly (there is a
staggered starting time). No local level agreement could be
reached and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 13th May. Following two conciliation
conferences on the 3rd and 11th June, the following terms were
drawn up by the Court's Industrial Relations Officer and both
parties agreed to recommend them for acceptance:
"(a) starting time will be 7.30 a.m. for those presently starting
at 8.40 a.m. and lunch-break will be 40 minutes for all
staff; all other starting times will be advanced
correspondingly.
(b) the above arrangement will be reviewed by the Company at the
end of September 1987.
(c) the sick-pay scheme will be amended by the substitution of a
"rolling period" of 12 months for the present arrangement of
using the tax-year - i.e. the 12 months will be calculated
back from the start of each absence.
(d) the Union agrees to co-operate in the carrying out of studies
of the "live hang-on" and other areas of the plant.
(e) basic rates will be increased by 3% from 1 April 1987 and by
a further 3% from 1 October 1987 - agreement to terminate
31st March, 1988.
(f) there will be no further cost-increasing claims for the
duration of the agreement."
The workers rejected these proposals and the issue was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on the 21st August, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned consider the proposal to adjust the
starting time to be a major change. Most of them must
travel some considerable distance to their job, many
depend on lifts while others have to travel over bad and
dangerous roads. In addition, many of the female members
are married and have young families and the proposed
change in times would leave it difficult, and indeed in
some situations impossible, to get to work on time as
they have to get their children ready for school before
they themselves leave for work.
(b) In recognition of the need for an earlier start, the
Union put forward a proposal at conciliation for an 8.00
a.m. start but the Company rejected this. This proposal
to bring the starting time forward by forty minutes was
very reasonable under the circumstances.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Supermarkets operate under very tight margins.
Consequently their customers must respond to strict
requirements on delivery, etc. They operate the system
of price pointing (i.e. chicken offered at fixed price as
distinct from price per pound) system. This puts great
pressure on the processing plant to be able to supply a
day's order complying with exact weight and numbers
required.
(b) At present, with the late start, production is not
finished until 7 - 8 p.m. each day depending on the size
of orders or machine performance. In view of this late
finish, it is impossible for the Company to advise
customers on the day if it is unable to fulfil their
exact requirements. The first the customer will hear of
this will be on the morning of delivery. This is not
acceptable to customers and has caused loss of business.
The Company must be in a position to advise customers on
the day of order, that changes may have to be made.
(c) At present, the Company often has to substitute larger
birds to fill orders and keep the business. This is
clearly unprofitable and it is also unacceptable to the
customer. Supermarkets are very anxious to maintain
uniformity in their price pointing.
(d) The Company relies largely on growers to supply it with
chickens. Inevitably there is inconsistency in size/
weight of chickens coming from the various growers. It
cannot be absolutely guaranteed that all chickens of say
36 days will weigh the same. This inconsistency is being
tackled by the Company by installing scales in the
growing houses.
(e) This inconsistency can be reduced by these measures but
not eliminated. By starting earlier the Company has more
time to try to fill the orders exactly and also negotiate
necessary changes with the Supermarkets. Ideally the
Company would have preferred a 7.00 a.m. start but a
compromise was agreed at 7.30 a.m. to be reviewed after a
few months.
(f) The Company's own distribution centres at Dublin and
Carlow are also at a severe disadvantage in the present
circumstances because they do not know what is available
until the following day. This gives rise to near chaos
in those locations where van salesmen have to come in at
6.00 a.m. (normal starting time 7.00 a.m.) to try and
sort out deliveries. The early start will facilitate the
pre-assembly on the day before delivery in an orderly
fashion and it will be possible to contact supermarkets
during working hours to deal with problems.
(g) If the Company were to attempt pre-assembly in the
present circumstances, one days shelf life would be lost.
This cannot be tolerated. The Company is proud of its
quality record and cannot allow that reputation to be
tarnished.
(h) It is very obvious that the Company is at a competitive
disadvantage with the present arrangements. Business has
been lost as a result. The new system will address these
problems and will make the jobs and the business more
secure. The change is necessary and is not unreasonable
given the above explanation. Furthermore, it is being
sought in the context of a very generous wage increase of
6%.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the proposals which emanated from conciliation and which are
set out in the letter dated the 11th June, 1987, are reasonable
and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd September, 1987
DH/PG Evelyn Owens
Deputy Chairman