Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8851 Case Number: LCR11701 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KROMBERG & SCHUBERT - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for a wage increase under the 27th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase its offer of 3.75% from 18th
September, 1987 for 12 months to 4.5% for the same period.
With regards the claim for parity for extrusion workers with
storekeepers the Court recommends that #25 of the bonus payable at
present be consolidated into the basic wage rate with effect from
1st March, 1988.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8851 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11701
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KROMBERG & SCHUBERT
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a wage increase under the 27th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns 680 production operatives. The 26th wage
round expired on 31st August, 1987. The workers have a weekly
basic rate of pay of #124 and are paid a bonus of approximately
#33. Following discussion at local level the Union claimed an
increase in basic rate of #16.00 per week, provision in the bonus
scheme for a minimum payment during the traditionally slack
periods and parity of basic rate for three shift operatives in one
of the Company's extrusion plants with stores personnel. The
basic pay for three shift operatives is #133 per week plus a 20%
shift premium. Currently a bonus payment of #60.65 per week is
paid in addition to the basic rate. The basic rate applicable to
stores personnel is #165 per week and a bonus of approximately
#13. The parity claim relates to 27 workers. The Company
rejected the claim but offered to buy out by lump sum, the three
months following expiry of the 26th wage agreement and then to
implement the pay terms of the programme for national recovery.
As an alternative the Company offered a 3.75% increase over twelve
months followed by the pay terms of the programme for national
recovery. These offers were not acceptable to the Union. No
agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 16th
November, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 3rd
December, 1987 but no agreement was reached an on 21st January,
1988 the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 3rd February,
1988 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rate of pay for general operatives in the Company is
probably the lowest in the area. While rates of pay in one or
two other firms might be very close to the rate in the Company
the fringe benefits are excellent. As well as incentive
schemes and grading in some firms the grading allows workers
to a higher rate based on service.
3. 2. In 1987 the slack period lasted from April to annual leave
time, the most vital part of the year for the workforce as it
is normally the time when people save for annual leave.
During that period workers take home was between #80 and #88
per week. As a result the workers are now determined to bring
about a decent basic rate.
3. The machinery in the extrusion plant is varied and complex
and can take approximately six months to learn and become a
proficient operative. Little or no bonus is paid to workers
while learning the machines. In addition the workers have
very little confidence in the proposed incentive scheme
because they will not have any control over the earnings from
the scheme. Earnings will be dependent on how the machines
function and on the frequency of order changes.
4. The Company has had a good profitable fourteen years since
its establishment and should be generous enough to accept the
major role played by the workforce in bringing about and
maintaining that profitability and the smooth running of the
plant down through the years, by conceding that the base rate
should be substantially increased and so give the workforce a
reasonable basic rate. The workforce in the Company are
convinced that they can no longer depend on all year round
earnings from the bonus scheme and so are anxious to establish
a decent basic rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The wage situation in the Company in the coming years will
largely determine the Company's success or otherwise. Labour
cost increases cannot be allowed to go further out of line
with inflation, or rates of competitors.
2. All the indications are that pressure from customers to
keep prices at current levels (or reduce them) will continue.
3. The Company's employees are fairly rewarded in the context
of competitors, the industry, and other labour intensive
operations.
4. Employment in the Company since 1972 has grown to 840.
Lack of careful control of costs will undermine employment in
the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase its offer of 3.75% from 18th
September, 1987 for 12 months to 4.5% for the same period.
With regards the claim for parity for extrusion workers with
storekeepers the Court recommends that #25 of the bonus payable at
present be consolidated into the basic wage rate with effect from
1st March, 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___19th___February,__1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman