Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD884 Case Number: LCR11709 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH FERRIES - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Interpretation of 25th wage round agreement for deck and engine ships officers.
Recommendation:
7. The Court notes the conflicting records as to the outcome of
negotiations on the 25th Round. It is clear to the Court:-
(a) That the Union sought an increase of 7.50%,
(b) That the Company offer of 6.50% to the other staff members was
extended to the claimants and rejected.
(c) The conflict arises as to what constituted the Company's
final offer.
The Court notes the correspondence between the parties of 5th and
21st May, 1986 and is satisfied that the difference between the
parties arose as a result of poor communications aggravated by the
difficulties the Company were experiencing at that time.
In order to resolve the problem and noting that agreement has been
reached on the 26th round without evidently resolving this matter
relating to the 25th round the Court recommends that the Company
in the special circumstances of this case, offer and the Union
accept a further lump sum of 50% of the lump sum already paid in
final settlement of the 25th round.
As the difficulty outlined above relates only to the claimants the
Court does not see the recommendation above as having any
repercussive affects.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD884 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11709
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH FERRIES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of 25th wage round agreement for deck and
engine ships officers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Negotiations on the 25th wage round for this group of workers
concluded on 2nd May, 1986, and on 5th May, 1986 the Company wrote
to the Union setting out the terms of the wage round as follows:-
- 1 month pay pause,
- 4% for 7 months,
- 2.50% for 7 months,
- 1% effective 1st December, 1986,
- 15 month agreement.
3. On 21st May, 1986 the Union responded to the Company
indicating acceptance of the following:
- 1 month pay pause,
- 4% increase from 1st February, 1986,
- 2.50% increase from 1st September, 1986,
- 1% increase from 1st December, 1986,
- 15 month agreement.
4. On 17th November, 1986 the Company wrote to the Union stating
that there appeared to have been a misunderstanding on the terms
of the agreement and that the 1% payment on 1st December, 1986 was
for one month only, in lieu of the original Company proposal of
#100 Christmas Bonus, i.e. 15 month agreement - 6.50% plus 1% bonus
1st December, 1986. The Company paid the officers 1% of annual
salary as a lump sum in December, 1986. Local level meetings took
place in 1987 and on 9th September, 1987 the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. An invitation to
conciliation issued on the 10th September and a response was
received on 23rd November, 1987. A conciliation conference was
held on 17th December, 1987. The Union's position was that the 1%
to be paid in December, 1986 was the final phase of the agreement
to be built into the salary rate and not a once off lump sum
(giving a total increase of 7.50%) while the Company maintained that
this was a once off payment in lieu of Christmas bonus. No
progress could be made and on 4th January, 1988 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 10th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company's position is that the 25th wage round
agreement for other sections of the workforce was for a 6.50%
increase plus #100 lump sum Christmas bonus and that the 1%
paid in December to these workers was intended to be a
once-off payment in lieu of the Company's original proposal of
#100 Christmas bonus to Ships Officers. However, although
these proposals were made by the Company in the course of
negotiations they were rejected by the Union at the meeting
held on 2nd May, 1986 and it was not until the Company made a
proposal to apply the 1% to the salary rate as a final phase
that agreement was reached.
2. The terms of the agreement as set out in the Union's
letter of acceptance of 21st May, 1986 (details supplied to
the Court) are an accurate account of what was agreed with the
Company i.e. final phase of 1% from 1st December, 1986, to
31st March, 1987. One of the Company negotiators at the
meeting held on 2nd May, 1986 confirmed in May, 1986 that
these were the terms he had intended in his letter of 5th May,
1986 to the Union (details supplied to the Court). It was not
until six months later that a Company representative not
present at the negotiations contacted the Union claiming that
there was a misunderstanding. The 25th wage round should be
implemented in full by the application of the final phase of
1% to salaries.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The maximum amount the Company was prepared to offer to
the workers concerned was 6.5% in two phases over a fifteen
month period, with a once off payment equivalent to 1% of
salary. The Company changed the proposal from a #100 lump sum
to a percentage payment due to the Union's concern that the
lump sum payment of #100 was more favourable relatively
speaking to the other groups as they were lower paid and that
the #100 represented approximately 1% of salary for these
groups.
2. Basic pay increases under the pay rounds have always been
the same for the three groups of workers in the Company. The
other groups had settled at 6.5% and therefore the Company had
no intention of making an increased offer of 7.5% to the Ships
Officers. If an additional 1% basic pay increase was agreed
in this case, there would be repercussive claims from the
other groups of workers who traditionally receive the same pay
increases. Concession of the claim would involve a
significant cost to the Company.
3. The 1% increase was payable in December, 1986 the purpose
being to de-limit the bonus payment to permanent staff. If
the percentage increase had been applied it would have been
paid to all staff. The terms of the offer are set out in the
Company's minutes of the meeting held on 2nd May, 1986
(details supplied to the Court). Improvement in these terms
cannot be justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court notes the conflicting records as to the outcome of
negotiations on the 25th Round. It is clear to the Court:-
(a) That the Union sought an increase of 7.50%,
(b) That the Company offer of 6.50% to the other staff members was
extended to the claimants and rejected.
(c) The conflict arises as to what constituted the Company's
final offer.
The Court notes the correspondence between the parties of 5th and
21st May, 1986 and is satisfied that the difference between the
parties arose as a result of poor communications aggravated by the
difficulties the Company were experiencing at that time.
In order to resolve the problem and noting that agreement has been
reached on the 26th round without evidently resolving this matter
relating to the 25th round the Court recommends that the Company
in the special circumstances of this case, offer and the Union
accept a further lump sum of 50% of the lump sum already paid in
final settlement of the 25th round.
As the difficulty outlined above relates only to the claimants the
Court does not see the recommendation above as having any
repercussive affects.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___24th___February,__1988. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman