Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8853 Case Number: LCR11703 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KROMBERG & SCHUBERT - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim under the 27th wage round for a wage increase and a review of the bonus structure.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase the offer of 3.75% from the
1st September, 1987 for a period of 12 months to 4.5% for the same
period. In view of the fact that a revision of bonus took place
last year the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for further negotiations at this time.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8853 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11703
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 and a
review of the bonus structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns 16 quality assurance inspectors. The 26th
wage round terminated for these workers on 31st August, 1987. The
workers have a weekly basic rate of pay of #141.74 and are paid a
bonus of approximately #35. The Union claimed as part of the 27th
wage round an 8% increase on the basic rate over a twelve month
period from 1st September, 1987 and a review of the bonus
structure. The Company rejected the claim and offered either to
buy out, by lump sum, the three months following the expiry of the
26th wage round agreement and then to implement the terms of the
programme for national recovery or a 3.75% increase over twelve
months followed by the terms of the programme for national
recovery. These offers were not 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 354 settlements under the 27th round have been
concluded providing an average increase of 5.5% for an average
duration of 13.9 months. Annualised this gives an average of
4.8%. Well over half of these settlements provide for a
single phase increase, with the trend very much towards twelve
month agreements.
2. The quality assurance inspectors are responsible for
ensuring the quality of the Company's product. They are
responsible for checking the product from preparation right
through to the end product. The amount of responsibility
involved in their job is not adequately reflected in their
basic rate of #141.94. The 8% increase sought is not
excessive.
3. 3. The workers' rate is #29.96 lower than the supervisors
basic rate of #171.90, but only #17.59 higher than the general
operatives rate of #124.35 which is an unfair imbalance and
the workers feel that their basic rate should at least be
mid-way between these two grades of workers.
4. The Company's current offer of 3.75% on #141.94 would not
even address that imbalance. The Union's claim is a modest
one and should be conceded in full.
5. The bonus scheme in operation is quality and productivity
related. Over the past twelve months the average bonus earned
by the workers concerned has been in the region of #31.00 per
week. This does not compare favourably with the bonus
earnings of other employees in the Company.
6. The bonus that can be earned under the current scheme is
usually between #29.00-#35.00 approximately. Whilst the
members appreciate that the minimum amount achieved is seldom
less than #29.00 the scheme is restrictive in that it limits
the ceiling on bonus earnings at approximately #35.00 which
the workers feel is too low, hence the request to the Company
to review it.
7. As very little discussion and no progress was made on this
part of the claim in direct negotiations the Union would
request that the Court recommend that further discussions
should take place between the parties locally in an attempt to
reach agreement on a more equitable bonus system for these
workers.
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 the offer of 3.75% from the
1st September, 1987 for a period of 12 months to 4.5% for the same
period. In view of the fact that a revision of bonus took place
last year the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim for further negotiations at this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___19th___February,___1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman