Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87491 Case Number: LCR11433 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN GAS CO. - and - FWUI;AGEMOU |
Claims under the 26th wage round for: (a) a wage increase and, (b) additional annual leave.
Recommendation:
10. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
particularly having regard to the exceptional nature of the
Company's present situation and the upset in the progress towards
financial stability and viability the Court recommends the Company
should offer an increase of 3% in respect of an agreement of 14
months duration the payment to be made with effect from a date 2
months after the appropriate termination date for each group of
workers involved.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim for
additional holidays.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87491 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11433
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11433
Parties: DUBLIN GAS COMPANY
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION
Subject:
1. Claims under the 26th wage round for:
(a) a wage increase and,
(b) additional annual leave.
General background:
2. These claims concern approximately 500 workers. The 25th wage
round ended for these on various dates from 31st March, 1986 to
30th June, 1986. The Company was placed in receivership in April,
1986. Negotiations took place between all unions in the Company
and the receiver and in September, 1986 a 'viability agreement'
was concluded. Under that agreement there was to be a meeting in
April, 1987 regarding pay rates. In April, 1987 the Unions
claimed a 10% wage increase and an additional two days leave. The
Company rejected the claim. No agreement was reached through
local negotiations and on 4th May, 1987 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 4th June, 1987 but no agreement was
reached. On 22nd June, 1987 the case was referred to the Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was
held on 31st July, 1987.
Claim (a) : a wage increase:
Background:
3. The Unions are claiming a 10% wage increase for the 26th wage
round. The Company rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The workers have not received any increase in pay for,
in some cases sixteen months and in others thirteen
months. Any increase in pay should compensate for the
erosion in pay value over that period and should
provide for projected loss in the currency of the new
agreement.
(ii) In a survey of 26th Wage Round settlements carried out
by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the following
emerged:-
Total number of settlements .. .. .. .. .. .. 685
Total number of workers involved .. .. .. .. 77,155
Average increase .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6.8%
Average duration .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13.7 months
Annualised .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5.95%
(iii) In recent recommendations the Court recommended a 4%
wage increase over twelve months with no pay pause in
the case of Bord Gais Eireann (Labour Court
Recommendation No. 11207 refers) and a 5% wage increase
to apply from 1st January, 1987 to the end of 1987 in
the case of Waterford Gas (Labour Court Recommendation
No. 11200 refers). It should be noted that Waterford
Gas is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dublin Gas.
(iv) The 26th wage round settlements in two of the Company's
competitors were:
Coal Distributors - 6% for 12 months, 1st July, 1986 to
30th June, 1987.
Oil Companies - 3.5% for 7 months.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) It cannot be acceptable that the Unions, having by
agreement opted for a pay pause until April, 1987 and
also lent themselves to a clear definition of the
meaning of viability, can now attempt to process to a
successful conclusion a claim for a wage/salary
increase using the fact of a mutually agreed minimum
pay pause as support for 6.8% of the 10% claim, and
also pursuing the claim notwithstanding that viability
is not yet achieved. The Unions argue that the failure
to achieve viability is not their responsibility, that
they have honoured their Viability Agreement
commitments, to date. Equally, the Company has
honoured its commitments in the same regard.
(ii) The events and incidents at Raglan House, Dolphin
House, Westland Row and Nicholas Street, have resulted
in:-
. a greater volume of work being necessary to be
carried out by DGC in the first half of 1987 than
was completed in the totality of years 1985 and
1986 cumulatively;
. an inability to develop the market and measurably
improve sales of gas, due to public and business
reaction to the events referred to;
. the necessary expenditure of relativity huge
volumes of money, to date and on-going, towards
dealing with the aftermath of the incidents
referred to in the interests of public and staff
safety and confidence.
(iii) The claim if conceded could only worsen the position of
non-viability.
(iv) There is a danger also that the Company's staff may
feel that the pending purchase of the assets of the
Company by Bord Gais Eireann B.G.E. may dilute or
relieve the obligation on the Company to be viable.
Management do not share such a view. In fact
Management believes the necessity to achieve viability
within the utility will be highlighted through the
provisions of section 2 (3) of the Gas (Amendment) Act,
1987, which provides:
"The Board shall publish each year separate audited
accounts of the Dublin Gas Company operation showing
the full financial position of the Company, including
details of the contract for purchase of gas and a
general description of the tariffs for sale of gas to
customers."
This provision clearly insists that the utility must
become viable in its own right.
(v) Apart from the fact that in accepting a pay pause the
Unions ought not to seek compensation for same, it is
surely clear that the Company's employees have been
generously and well protected in advance, for the
effects of inflation (details supplied to the Court).
(vi) A comparison of the rates of pay in the Dublin area
shows the relatively good standard of basic pay in the
Company (details supplied to the Court).
(vii) The generous earning power of the workers should also
be borne in mind. The position to the end of June,
1987 shows an average of #373.83 per week per employee.
Claim (b) : additional annual leave:
Background:
6. The levels of Annual Leave which currently apply are:
Minimum - 22 days p.a. (incl. of 2 Company
holidays on Good Friday and 27th
December)
Shift workers - 23 days p.a. (Incl. of 2 Company
holidays)
Staff Grades - 23 days p.a. (after 12 years Company
service and incl. of 2 Company
holidays)
- 24 days p.a. (after 15 years Company
service and incl. of 2 Company
holidays)
The Union is claiming two additional day's annual leave. The
Company rejects the claim.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) The present annual leave entitlement in the Company is
out of line with comparable employments. There is
little or no recognition for service, status or shift
working, in holiday entitlements. This position should
now be rectified.
Company's arguments:
8. (i) The Company's annual leave entitlements compare
favourably with the general level of entitlements
available.
(ii) In its present financial state the Company is unable to
concede this claim.
Union's general argument:
9. (i) The Company has been in receivership since April, 1986.
However, at this point in time, the process of
takeover, by Bord Gais is at a a very advanced stage.
A Bill has been passed through the Dail and it would be
fair to say the process of nationalisation is
irreversible at this stage. Therefore, the future of
the Company has been secured. The Court will be aware
that Bord Gais is the strongest Company operating in
the Public Sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
particularly having regard to the exceptional nature of the
Company's present situation and the upset in the progress towards
financial stability and viability the Court recommends the Company
should offer an increase of 3% in respect of an agreement of 14
months duration the payment to be made with effect from a date 2
months after the appropriate termination date for each group of
workers involved.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim for
additional holidays.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
Deputy Chairman.
28th September, 1987.
T.O'M/J.C.