Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88323 Case Number: LCR12167 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 106 operators for the implementation of an annual overtime payment as paid to operators in the Company's Cork plant.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is of the view that the Company's policy for phasing
out the anomaly that exists in Cork is reasonable and should be
continued. The Court accordingly does not consider that it would
be justified in recommending concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88323 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12167
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 106 operators for the
implementation of an annual overtime payment as paid to operators
in the Company's Cork plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the late 1970's, the Company opened a plant in Cork. The
Company applied the same basic rates for Cork workers as their
Arklow counterparts, however there were modifications to other
conditions of employment in Cork. One of the modifications was in
respect of the reward structure for overtime working. In Arklow
the conventional method of paying for actual overtime hours worked
applied, with two rates, time plus one half and double time. It
Cork a new approach was adopted whereby an agreed number of hours
per annum was set against the estimated requirement for work
outside normal hours. An annual payment based on the agreed hours
and using a premium of 1.86 was made to compensate for that work.
Special arrangements were made to accommodate significant peaks of
extra work in addition to the extra hours agreed, like plant
overhauls, but the premium of 1.86 was retained in calculating
payments for all overtime worked. A situation developed, however,
where the actual hours requested to be worked were in excess of
what had been estimated and additional overtime payments had to be
made at 1.86 per hour. Eventually in Cork an overtime payment
existed for which little or no return was being made while in
Arklow only actual hours worked were being paid for.
3. In June, 1984, following a period of losses and
rationalisation, the Company launched a "Plan for
Competitiveness", consisting of three major elements:-
- Reduction in workforce,
- Restructuring,
- A Comprehensive Agreement.
In June, 1985, the Company proposed a remuneration package to
apply in return for acceptance of the Plan, including:-
- Introduction of a three year wage agreement,
- Move towards standardisation of conditions of
employment within the Company,
- Agreed approach to 25th and 26th Wage Rounds,
- Agreed operating practice.
The Union accepted the Company's 'Plan for Competitiveness' and it
was agreed that the differences between the sides would be
eliminated in time, in consultation with the workforce. The
approach adopted by the Company to the elimination of the
differences was to incorporate 50% of the overtime payment (7.15%)
in Cork into the base salary over the period of four years. At
Arklow a similar adjustment was to be made to base salary over the
four year period. This approach would not increase annual
earnings at Cork, whereas at Arklow an increase of 7.15% in basic
pay would result by the end of the four years. The matter was
raised by the Union on a number of occasions. The Union claims
that it was tactily indicated at local level that in the event of
Cork securing a continuation of the payment, there would be 'no
problem' in Arklow. In October, 1987, after the Cork workers had
retained the payment, the Union claimed that the Arklow workers
should also receive it. The Company rejected the claim on the
basis that under the terms of the three years wage agreement, the
Union was precluded from making any cost increasing claims. As
the matter could not be settled at local level the Union referred
the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's
investigation on 22nd November, 1988, in Arklow, the Union agreed
to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is incorrect in its contention that the Union
is precluded from seeking this payment under the terms of the
three year wage agreement. Clause 7 of the Programme for
Competitiveness states "this agreement does not preclude the
group from raising again with the Company any adjustments to
buy-outs or consolidation that may be conceded to other groups
in the Company". Management are in fact breaching their
obligation under the Agreement.
4. 2. The Agreement specifically states that the Company's
intention is to eliminate differences between sides. There is
no logical or justifiable reason why similar categories of
workers in the same Company should not have similar payments.
There is no basis for distinction based on location. Indeed,
the Labour Court has in the past appreciated that differences
in payments based on location are not justifiable.
3. There is an obvious inherent weakness in the Company's
case by their refusal to utilise normal dispute resolving
machinery. The Company did not have any meaningful
negotiations on the dispute and refused to allow a joint
referral to the Labour Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company, in the Comprehensive Agreement, stated it's
policy toward eliminating differences between sites. The only
undertaking made by the Company in respect of that policy was
to incorporate 7.15% of the overtime allowance paid at Cork
into the base rates at Arklow. This has been done.
2. The Company is satisfied that under the terms of the
Programme for Competitiveness the Union's claim is prohibited.
In the acceptance document of December, 1986, the shift
workers accepted as "full and final settlement" the pay terms,
including the payment on retrospection. (Details supplied to
the Court).
3. The pay terms of the Programme for National Recovery
commenced for all Company employees on 1st March, 1988, and
under the terms of the Programme the shift workers are
prohibited from making any cost increasing claims on the
Company. The only provision for increases in excess of the
terms of the Programme is by way of mutual agreement between
both parties. In this instance the Company very definitely
does not agree to concession of this claim.
4. The Union have quoted item 7 of the acceptance document as
a basis for justifying their claim. The wording of this
section is taken from a clause inserted into the acceptance
document signed by the first group to accept the Programme for
Competitiveness and was sought by them to protect them should
any better terms be conceded to groups who would sign later.
The same clause as item 7 was inserted in acceptance documents
for all groups.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is of the view that the Company's policy for phasing
out the anomaly that exists in Cork is reasonable and should be
continued. The Court accordingly does not consider that it would
be justified in recommending concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___14th___December,__1988. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman