Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88874 Case Number: LCR12164 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of approximately nine employees in the Company's service department, for a wage increase.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the Company's offer to apply the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery from the 1st July, 1988, is appropriate and
recommends that the Union accept that offer.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88874 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12164
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately nine employees in the
Company's service department, for a wage increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed in the service department
and enjoy rates of pay ranging from approximately #130 to #209 per
week. The claimants' last agreement expired on the 30th June,
1988, and the Union lodged a claim for an across the board #15
wage increase. This was rejected by the Company which offered the
terms of the Programme for National Recovery (PNR). Following the
failure of local level negotiations, the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 14th July, 1988.
A conciliation conference on the 26th August, failed to resolve
the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 9th November. A Court
hearing was held on the 28th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1986, claims were served on the Company for substantial
increases in rates of pay to bring them into line with similar
categories in industry generally. The Company's contention at
the time was that its trading activities and losses prevented
it from eliminating the anomalies which then existed.
Increases were conceded and accepted by the workers following
their acceptance of the Company's trading position. In 1987,
salary grades were introduced to cover the categories of
electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and stores
staff and in September of that year a further 4% was applied.
However, each grade referred to is not enjoying rates of pay
which apply in similar circumstances in other companies
(details supplied to the Court).
3. 2. The claimants feel that they have been more than patient
and reasonable with the Company over the past few years and
consider that their claim for #15 across the board is
reasonable, especially as their rates are so out of line with
comparable employments (details supplied).
3. The Company has moved to new premises in the Airways
Industrial Estate and despite references to unfavourable
trading conditions, it has continued to recruit additional
staff while the issue of a wage increase remains unresolved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not see any basis for claiming terms in
excess of those agreed and applied throughout the industrial
and commercial sector. Union members employed in the Company
will benefit from the tax concessions agreed under the
framework of the PNR.
2. There have been very significant improvements made in pay
and conditions of the staff concerned in recent years, well in
excess of the average level of increase applying generally.
The introduction of an agreed pay structure, establishing
rates of pay for each particular grade, was an expensive
exercise from the Company's viewpoint, and further
improvements have since been made.
3. The Company's trading situation would not allow for
increases in excess of those proposed. Costs have been
increasing very rapidly, in particular payroll costs, and
although turnover has increased, the rate of cost increase has
been greater. The Company is operating in an extremely
competitive environment with very strong pressure on margins.
4. The Company has advised the Union that it will honour its
commitments under the PNR and the Court is respectfully
requested to recommend acceptance of these terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view
that the Company's offer to apply the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery from the 1st July, 1988, is appropriate and
recommends that the Union accept that offer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___14th___December,__1988. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman