Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88898 Case Number: LCR12163 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of approximately 120 workers for the payment of an annual bonus of 5% of gross earnings per person as a result of the Company decision to convert to natural gas instead of solid or heavy fuel.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that there is no sustainable case to be made in
support of the Unions' claim arising out of the change over to
natural gas. In the event of incidental changes in working
conditions which may give rise to loss of earnings these are more
appropriately dealt with as they arise and can be quantified but
the possibility of such changes occurring in no way warrants an
overall increase for the workforce. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88898 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12163
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 120 workers for the payment
of an annual bonus of 5% of gross earnings per person as a result
of the Company decision to convert to natural gas instead of solid
or heavy fuel.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company produces seawater magnesia at its factory which is
located on the site of the old cement works on the north side of
the Boyne. Its entire production is exported to various
countries. It is a very heavy user of energy.
3. Since the commencement of its operations the Company has been
burning oil and petroleum coke in its rotary kilns, furnances and
boilers. This year the Company invested #1.6m in gas burning
equipment as natural gas is cheaper than the other fuels and
easier and cleaner to handle. All the burners and kilns have been
converted and have the capacity to burn either fuels or a mix of
fuels and are ready to be switched over since October.
4. The Unions lodged a claim for a bonus payment in respect of
the conversion. This claim was rejected by the Company. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 18th October, 1988. A conciliation conference was held
on 18th November, 1988. At the conference the Unions quantified
their claim as an annual bonus of 5% of gross wages. As no
agreement was possible the parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 9th December, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The claim is based on the fact that considerable savings
will accrue to the Company as a result of the conversion.
There will be no more bulk baying, bulk storing, shipping
costs, transport costs or milling of petroleum coke. The
latter three measures will result in loss of earnings for some
of the workers concerned (dockers and truck drivers).
2. The Company has always insisted that savings should be
split three ways i.e. the Company, customer and the workers.
As this Company is a major user of fuel the savings will be
significant.
3. Over the last number of years the workers have implemented
changes which have resulted in savings and loss of jobs. The
Company are insisting on further changes before any
compensation is paid. The workers feel that unless some
agreement is reached, before the conversion to natural gas,
they will, as in the other cases of conceding changes, have to
wait for all changes to be agreed and implemented, before they
receive any compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Our general workers already enjoy wage rates and benefits
which compare very favourably with those similar industries
locally and indeed throughout the country (details supplied to
the Court).
2. Natural gas is an easy fuel to burn. Experience at plants
similar to ours indicates that all our burners will give less
trouble with natural gas than with either oil or petroleum
coke. It will therefore reduce, not increase, the demands on
all personnel involved with it.
3. The primary reason for the Company's substantial
investment in gas burning equipment was to help secure our
industry (and our jobs) by becoming more competitive in the
open world market where we sell our product. Any dilution of
this effort through having to pay unjustifiably higher wages
would be a retrograde step.
4. The Company refute the argument that there will be a loss
of earnings. In the case of dockers the port has never been
busier and in fact at times some boats have to be diverted to
other ports. This trend seems likely to continue for some
time. The truck drivers will be redeployed elsewhere. If
however, any compensation claim for loss of earnings as a
result of natural gas conversion arises in the future it will
be decided on its own merits at that time.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that there is no sustainable case to be made in
support of the Unions' claim arising out of the change over to
natural gas. In the event of incidental changes in working
conditions which may give rise to loss of earnings these are more
appropriately dealt with as they arise and can be quantified but
the possibility of such changes occurring in no way warrants an
overall increase for the workforce. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
12th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.