Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88167 Case Number: LCR11811 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WHELAN BOOT MANUFACTURING LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of 60 operatives for a pay increase in respect of the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase its offer of £2.25 per week
for a 2nd phase of the 26th round from 1/10/87 to 31/3/88 to £3.00
per week.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88167 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11811
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WHELAN BOOT MANUFACTURING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 60 operatives for a pay increase in respect
of the 26th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of mens and boys
footwear for sale and distribution to the Irish retail markets.
On 18th March, 1987 the Union submitted a claim for a wage
increase of £12 per week in respect of the 26th wage round which
was due from 1st April, 1987. Local level meetings in May, 1987
resulted in agreement on a wage increase of £3 on basic rates from
1st April, 1987 for a 12 month period terminating on 30th March,
1988 provision was also made for a bona fide review on 30th
September, 1987. Discussions on the review took place in October
and November, 1987 and both sides agreed to recommend settlement
proposals of a further increase of £2.25 (2%) from 1st October,
1987 to 30th March, 1988. However, this offer was rejected by the
Union membership and on 22nd October, 1987 the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 12th January, 1988 at which the Union
stated its position was for an increase of £4 which was
unacceptable to the Company. The conciliation conference was
adjourned to allow both parties to review their positions. No
further progress was made and on 27th January, 1988 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 29th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The level of basic pay in the Company is low which is a
long standing problem in the footwear industry generally.
These are highly skilled workers but inclusive of the first
phase of £3 paid in this wage round, the full adult rate which
is applicable at 19 years of age is only £112.86 per week,
while 20% of all workers are under 18 years of age and on much
lower pay. There is a bonus scheme which pays on average 25%
of basic however even with this, earnings in the Company are
£30 per week below most other employers in the area.
3. 2. The Company has stated that it cannot afford to increase
costs and that orders are down on 1986 levels. However sales
are in excess of £2m and the overall trading results from
profit or loss against sales are not given. The Company has
also complained about unfair price competition from imported
shoes, however a sister Company, Gerald Whelan & Sons is a
substantial importer of a wide range of footwear.
3. The Company's offer in two phases equates to an increase
of 4.83% which is below the 5% paid under the various Joint
Labour Committee's in one phase in respect of the 26th wage
round. The average increase on an annualised basis for the
26th round was 6% and this Union's original claim for a £12
flat increase for a twelve month period would have to be fully
conceded to amount to the value of 6% on average industrial
earnings. The workers have adopted a flexible approach to
this wage round and the Company should be willing to concede a
reasonable increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The shoe industry in this country has declined greatly in
recent years in part due to the reduction in consumer
spending. Competition and market pressures have increased
significantly and the future outlook for the Company has not
been helped by the fact that retail sales in native footwear
markets contracted by approximately 6% over 1987 on the
previous years figures. Competitors in the U.K. have much
lower costs than in this Company and labour costs which amount
to 40% of production costs cannot be increased further in the
circumstances. (details supplied to the Court)
2. A sister company, Gerald Whelan & Sons Ltd which is
essentially involved in the importation and distribution of
footwear, does not import directly in competition with the
Company. In the past the Union has considered the Company to
be the poor relation of the two. However, the Labour Court in
respect of the 26th round for the sister Company (L.C.R. No.
11474 of 19th October, 1987 refers) recommended an increase of
£3 per week from 1st April, 1987 and a further 2% from 1st
October, 1987, to expire on 31st March, 1988 (Good Friday as
an extra days annual leave from 1988 was also recommended).
This recommendation was implemented and equates to the offer
which was rejected by the workers concerned.
3. The Company pays a basic rate of £112.86 per week and in
addition operates a production incentive scheme which yields
considerable weekly bonus earnings (details supplied to the
Court). The rates of pay compare favourably with others in
the Cavan area and in the shoe industry generally (details
supplied to the Court) without taking into account the further
increase that the Company had offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase its offer of £2.25 per week
for a 2nd phase of the 26th round from 1/10/87 to 31/3/88 to £3.00
per week.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Labour
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
21st April, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.