Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8852 Case Number: LCR11702 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KROMBERG & SCHUBERT - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, under the 27th wage round, for a wage increase, additional annual leave and the introduction of a pension scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase the offer of 3.75% from 1st
September, 1987 for a period of 12 months to 4.5% for the same
period.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an
increase in annual leave. With regard to the bonus claim for
certain categories the Court notes the Company's willingness to
enter into negotiations at local level on this item and considers
this an appropriate response in the circumstances.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8852 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11702
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, under the 27th wage round, for a wage increase,
additional annual leave and the introduction of a pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns 33 production supervisors, stores
controllers and utility chargehands. The 26th wage round expired
on 31st August, 1987. The Union claimed a 8% increase in basic
rate and bonus over twelve months, 2 additional days annual leave,
and the introduction of a pension scheme. A claim for parity of
basic rate for three utility chargehands with supervisors was also
included. The weekly basic pay of the utility chargehands is
#151.78 in addition they receive approximately #45 bonus payment
plus an overtime payment equal to half the bonus. The supervisors
have a weekly basic rate of #171.90 and an average bonus of #67.
The stores controllers total earnings would be approximately equal
to the supervisors although its make-up of basic and bonus is
different. The Company rejected the claims but offered to buy
out, by lump sum the three months following termination of the
26th wage round agreement. It then proposed to implement the
terms of the programme for national recovery. As an alternative
the Company offered a 3.75% increase over twelve months followed
by the terms of the programme for national recovery. Neither of
these offers were acceptable to the Union. No agreement was
reached through local negotiations and on 25th November, 1987 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 17th December, 1987
but no agreement was reached and on 22nd 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. To-date under the 27th round 354 settlements have been
concluded providing an average level of increase of 4.8%
annualised. Well over half of these settlements provide for a
single phase increase with the trend very much towards twelve
months agreements.
3. 2. Over the past number of years there has been a substantial
increase in the level of taxation and PRSI payments with
workers take-home-pay being greatly reduced as a result, thus
causing a drop in their living standards. It is take-home-pay
which is relevant to workers and not gross pay. Last year
most taxpayers saw their real income, allowing for inflation,
fall by between 1-2% and it is our intention under this round
to improve the workers' standard of living and feel that the
6% increase sought is by no means excessive.
3. The utility chargehands have a basic rate of #151.28 and a
fixed bonus of #45.00 per week. Their basic rate is #20.62
lower than the supervisors basic rate, the difference is
excessive. They have responsibility for ensuring that
materials get to the lines promptly, there are 19 lines
currently in operation, thus ensuring continuity of production
at all times.
4. Their bonus is fixed at #45 but they would prefer that it
be structured in a similar fashion to the scheme applying to
the supervisors and which would afford them greater
flexibility of bonus earnings. When the factory efficiency
figure is at a high level the supervisors can earn high bonus
and the chargehands would like to be afforded that same
facility of a high paid bonus which would in some way
compensate them for the difference in basic rates.
5. The 3 stores, goods in and dispatch controllers are also
seeking a change in the structure of their bonus. Whilst we
appreciate that they enjoy a higher basic rate than the other
two groups mentioned in this claim, the actual amount of bonus
they earn weekly is minimal when compared to other groups
within the Company.
6. With reference to the claim for 2 additional days leave,
it will be seen from the annual leave entitlements in other
European countries that Ireland is very much the poor relation
in this regard and this imbalance should be redressed.
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. 4. Lack of careful control of costs will undermine employment
in the Company which since 1972 has grown to 840.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase the offer of 3.75% from 1st
September, 1987 for a period of 12 months to 4.5% for the same
period.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an
increase in annual leave. With regard to the bonus claim for
certain categories the Court notes the Company's willingness to
enter into negotiations at local level on this item and considers
this an appropriate response in the circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___19th___February,___1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman