Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88181 Case Number: LCR11802 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MACNAUGHTONS TWISTEEL REINFORCEMENTS LTD - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of 18 production operatives for a wage agreement.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows:-
(a) a lump sum of £150 in respect of the period 1st October,
1987 to 30th September, 1988,
and
(b) 4% increase in basic pay from 1st October, 1988.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88181 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11802
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MACNAUGHTONS TWISTEEL REINFORCEMENTS LTD
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 18 production operatives for a wage
agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in cutting and bending steel and the
manufacture of steel mesh. The previous wage agreement for the
workers expired on 30th September, 1987. The workers present rate
of basic pay is £173.48 plus bonus. The Union served a claim on
the Company for a new wage agreement for twelve months of:-
- 10% increase on basic
- similar increase on bonus
- introduction of service days
- increase in Christmas bonus
3. This was rejected by the Company who made an offer of £150
lump sum tax paid by the Company with no further cost increasing
claims for the twelve month period to 30th September, 1988. As no
agreement could be reached, the matter was referred on 3rd
February, 1988 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 16th February, 1988 at which
no progress was made and on 2nd March, 1988 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 21st March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Workers in a sister company, Dublin Steel are paid a basic
rate of £183.65 per week which is £10 higher than the basic
pay of the workers concerned, a floor level bonus of
approximately £12 and the opportunity of overtime earnings of
approximately £70 - £80 per week. In addition, this Company
offered their workers for this wage agreement a net payment of
£150 for a 12 month period and the guarantee of a 4% increase
from 1st October, 1988 without negotiation. It is clear
therefore that workers in one company in the Group are being
treated considerably better than workers in this Company. In
addition, agreements have been made with other groups of
workers in the Company for increases of 4% and above for a
twelve month period.
4. 2. The Company has quoted earnings in a number of other
companies. However for one of these, Heiton McFerran, the
rates are in fact higher than those quoted. In addition bonus
is paid to the workers in Heiton McFerran without the
achievement of pre-agreed targets, whereas in this Company
bonus is only paid when agreed targets are achieved. The
bonus scheme was the subject of a Labour Court recommendation
in 1985 (LCR No. 10128 refers). No increase was applied to
bonus earnings in the period of the last agreement and if this
continues bonus earnings will lose all relativity to the basic
rate, and subsequently all incentive will be lost.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company's production workers are the highest paid in
the steel business in Ireland and average earnings for the
current year are £13,747, a weekly rate of just over £264.
The rates are 10% higher than in Heitons and 20% higher than
in the Steel Company of Ireland (details supplied to the
Court). In the present circumstances, the Company's offer
which is equivalent to an increase of between 2.9% and 4.85%
(depending on tax rates) is more than reasonable.
2. In an attempt to remain in business despite drastic
cutbacks in construction work in Ireland, the Company has
developed business in Northern Ireland and England at
increased cost due to distance and lower margins. It cannot
sustain further ongoing increases in labour costs and continue
to compete in these markets. If the Company continues to
apply percentage wage increases it will not be able to compete
and stay in business, if the Company's offer is accepted the
workers will remain the best paid in the industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows:-
(a) a lump sum of £150 in respect of the period 1st October,
1987 to 30th September, 1988,
and
(b) 4% increase in basic pay from 1st October, 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
18th April, 1988
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.