Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87572 Case Number: LCR11397 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LEEDS AND NORTHRUP - and - ITGWU |
Claims on behalf of approximately thirty-five workers in respect of the twenty-seventh wage round.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions recommends as
follows:-
(a) Pay: - 3% increase from 1/4/87 and a further 2%
increase from 1/12/87.
Agreement to terminate 30th June, 1988.
(b) Service Pay: - Increase of 50p per week on each stage.
(c) Pensions: - Negotiations should take place during the
15 month period of this agreement with
the objective of having proposals
available for consideration when the
negotiations commence on the next pay
round.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87572 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11397
CC87889 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11397
Parties: LEEDS AND NORTHRUP
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of approximately thirty-five workers in
respect of the twenty-seventh wage round.
Background:
2. The Company is involved in electronic assembly work, primarily
for the export market and employs approximately seventy workers.
The 26th wage round for the workers expired on 31st March, 1987
and on 2nd April, 1987 the Union on behalf of the workers served
claims on the Company in respect of the 27th wage round as
follows:-
1. A 10% one phase increase in pay for a twelve month
period (1/4/87 to 31/3/88).
2. An increase in the 'Christmas Bonus' from #1 to #2 per
week.
3. An increase in service pay from the current level of
#2.50 per week to #5.00 per week (and similarly for
each stage). Also a reduction in the qualifying period
from 5 to 4 years.
4. Discussions to take place on improvements to the
pension scheme.
3. At a local level meeting held on 29th April, 1987 the Company
made the following offer:-
1. A 3% increase in pay with effect from 1st April, 1987.
2. The agreement to last for a twelve month period and
there to be no further cost increasing claims for the
duration of the agreement.
4. After further discussions, the Union put forward further
proposals as follows:-
1. An increase in basic pay similar to the 26th wage round
settlement (6% for twelve months).
2. Introduction of service pay after three years at a rate
of #1.50 per week and an improvement in the existing
scheme from #2.50 per week to #3.00 per week after five
years, etc.
3. Improvements in pension scheme to be negotiated and
agreed improvements to be implemented at the end of the
27th wage round.
4. In the event of agreement on the above, the claim for
an improvement in Christmas Bonus to be dropped.
5. The Company's position remained the same and regarding the
pension scheme the Company proposed that such negotiations should
take place only in the context of the 28th wage round. As no
agreement could be reached, on 3rd June, 1987 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 6th July, 1987 at which no
agreement could be reached and on 20th July, 1987 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court heard the dispute on 20th August, 1987.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) The Company, which is a profitable multinational
concern has argued that it needs to remain competitive
but has never denied its profitability. The Company's
position that it cannot afford to pay the wage increase
sought is not acceptable.
(ii) According to a recently published examination of 27th
wage round settlements (details supplied to the Court),
the average cumulative increase is currently 5.1%, due
mainly to settlements in foreign manufacturing
companies. This is considerably above the Company's
offer. The study also states that there have been few
agreements close to the current inflation rate. The
Company's offer is therefore out of line not only with
other foreign manufacturing companies, but also with
the majority of settlements to date in the 27th wage
round.
(iii) The existing service pay scheme in operation was only
recently introduced and cannot be compared favourably
with schemes in other comparable companies (details
supplied to the Court). The improvement sought by the
Union is extremely modest.
(iv) The Company has awarded increases of between 5.5% and
7.7% to technical and administrative workers compared
to the offer of only 3% to the workers concerned here.
Company's arguments:
7. (a) The Company is in an extremely competitive business.
As a result of the very competitive situation margins
have been tightened over the past number of years and
the Company must take into account the effect of cost
increases on its ability to remain competitive.
(b) The rates of pay and conditions of employment in
existence in the Company are well in line with those
paid in the electronics industry (details supplied to
the Court). The agreement reached in the previous wage
round (6% for twelve months and #1 per week Christmas
bonus) was more favourable than most settlements in the
industry where out of a total of thirty-one twelve
month agreements an average cumulative increase of
5.85% was paid.
(c) The Company's offer which is in line with inflation is
reasonable in comparison with agreements in the
electronics industry in this round (details supplied to
the Court). The Union's statement that other workers
were offered increases of between 5.5% and 7.7% is
incorrect. The current levels of service pay are
reasonable and there is no basis for an increase and
out of forty eight companies in the electronics sector
only four pay a bonus (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions recommends as
follows:-
(a) Pay: - 3% increase from 1/4/87 and a further 2%
increase from 1/12/87.
Agreement to terminate 30th June, 1988.
(b) Service Pay: - Increase of 50p per week on each stage.
(c) Pensions: - Negotiations should take place during the
15 month period of this agreement with
the objective of having proposals
available for consideration when the
negotiations commence on the next pay
round.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
----------------
4th September, 1987
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman