Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88378 Case Number: LCR11983 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MCHENRY BROTHERS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 20 clerical and general workers for a wage increase under the 26th and 27th wage rounds.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends, having regard to all the circumstances
of this case, that the basic terms of the increase provided for in
the agreement between the I.C.T.U., the F.U.E. and the C.I.F.
reached under the aegis of the Programme for National Recovery
i.e. 3% on the first £120 of basic weekly pay and 2% on any amount
of basic weekly pay over £120, be applied. This increase should
be effective from 1st December, 1988.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88378 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11983
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MCHENRY BROTHERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 20 clerical and general
workers for a wage increase under the 26th and 27th wage rounds.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1987, the Union submitted a claim under the 26th
wage round for an 8% increase for 12 months from 1st September,
1986. The Company rejected the claim, as a result of difficult
trading conditions, and requested a pay freeze until January,
1988. Prior to a meeting with the Company on 30th March, 1988, to
discuss the issue, the Union submitted a new claim covering both
the 26th and 27th wage rounds as follows;
- £12 increase from 1st September, 1987, for 12 months
- Lump sum of £150 (net) compensation in lieu of period from
1st September, 1986, to 31st August, 1987.
The Company again rejected the claim on the basis of deteriorating
trading circumstances. On 5th April, 1988, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Agreement was not reached at a conciliation conference held on
17th May and on 23rd May, 1988, the matter was referred for
investigation to the Labour Court. A Court hearing took place on
11th July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have been seeking an increase in pay since 1st
September, 1986. Throughout the intervening period they have
co-operated fully with the Company. During this period the
Company has introduced many changes designed to achieve a more
cost effective operation.
2. Whilst the coal trade as a whole is doing badly, the
Company has developed other aspects of its business such as
cash and carry outlets, in order to maintain its market share.
3. The Union recognises that the level of business is down
but believes that the Company should recognise the
difficulties confronting the workers and their families, who
have suffered a steady erosion of their standard of living as
a result of inflation taxes, P.S.R.I. etc..
4. The Company has pointed out that costs have risen whilst
the price of coal has gone down. This may be so, but wages
have not contributed to increased costs. The workers employed
as yardmen are paid £125.61 per week, which by any standards
is low pay.
5. The claim cannot be considered exorbitant when compared
with settlements in the private sector. The average
annualised increase under the 26th wage round was nearly 6%
and the most recent analysis of settlements negotiated under
the 27th wage round shows an average annualised increase of
nearly 5%.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is currently going through difficult trading
circumstances resulting from a combination of factors
including:
- particularly mild winters in recent years,
- market size for the Company's product is declining
principally due to increasing usage of Dublin Gas,
- increased competition from new importers.
2. Reductions in costs and expenses are necessary. The
Company must meet its budgeted targets. These necessary
efforts will be negatived if an increase were conceded at the
present time.
3. The workers are fully aware of the cost cutting measures
implemented in recent times. In 1987 and 1988, it has been
necessary to temporarily lay-off workers who would not usually
be laid-off. A number of family members are no longer
employed with the Company and salary reductions have been
implemented for the remaining family members.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends, having regard to all the circumstances
of this case, that the basic terms of the increase provided for in
the agreement between the I.C.T.U., the F.U.E. and the C.I.F.
reached under the aegis of the Programme for National Recovery
i.e. 3% on the first £120 of basic weekly pay and 2% on any amount
of basic weekly pay over £120, be applied. This increase should
be effective from 1st December, 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
______________________
4th August, 1988 Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.