Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87719 Case Number: LCR11573 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AMICON LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claims, on behalf of approximately 34 workers, for improvements in pay and conditions under the 27th wage round.
Recommendation:
16. Claim (a) - 27th Pay Round
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
Claim (b) - Holiday Attendance Bonus
The Court does not recommend any change in the scheme.
Claim (e) - Sick Pay Scheme
The Court accepts that the Company's obligation under this scheme
is limited to payment of 90% net basic take home pay after all
elements have been taken into account.
Question of abuse of these schemes should be dealt with through
existing disciplinary schemes.
Claim (c) - Service Pay
The Court notes the parties are prepared to negotiate this issue
in 1988.
Claim (d) - Increase in Pay for Canteen Worker
The Court recommends concession of this claim.
Claim (f) - Temporary Employees
The Court notes that both parties are prepared to discuss this
issue and recommends that such discussions be completed by the end
of this year.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87719 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11573
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AMICON IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims, on behalf of approximately 34 workers, for
improvements in pay and conditions under the 27th wage round.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is located at the Raheen Industrial Estate
in Limerick, is a wholly owned subsidiary of an American Company
(W.R. Grace & Company) and is involved in the health care
industry. The Company currently employs 47 people. The 26th pay
round expired on 31st May, 1987. The Union lodged the following
claims at a Company/Union meeting held on 25th May, 1987:-
(a) A 10.50% pay increase for 12 months.
(b) Increase in holiday attendance bonus from #250 to #350 per
annum.
(c) Service pay increase in five year rate and the introduction
of a ten year rate.
(d) Increase in pay for the person working in the canteen.
In response, the Company stated that it wished to discuss:
Changes in the summer attendance related bonus, the sick pay
scheme and that there would be agreement on temporary workers.
A subsequent meeting was held between the parties at which the
above items were discussed. As no agreement was possible the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 8th June, 1987. A conciliation conference was held on
30th June, 1987. At the conciliation conference the Company put
forward the following offer:-
2.1 An increase in pay of 4.50% effective from 1st June, 1987 to
apply for 12 months,
2 Change the conditions of the holiday attendance as follows
5 days or less absence per annum will entitle workers to 100%
bonus (i.e. #250),
6 or 7 days absence per annum will entitle a worker to 50%
bonus,
8, 9 or 10 days absence per annum will entitle a worker to
25% bonus,
Over 10 days absence per annum will entitle a worker to no
bonus.
3 Sick pay scheme:
Revision of payment basis so that sick pay, social welfare
benefits and tax rebate shall not exceed 95% of nett basic
pay,
benefits from the scheme would be pro-rata to reflect the
level of attendance in the previous calendar year.
4 Temporary worker agreement:
This should be discussed and agreed with the Union with a
view to introduction prior to the expiry of the current pay
agreement.
The offer would be subject to a no further cost increasing claim,
industrial peace to apply for the duration of the agreement and
flexibility and co-operation with on-going change clauses. On
item (c) of claim the Company indicated they would be prepared to
discuss it in 1988. The Company made no offer on item (d). The
offer was rejected by the workers following a ballot. Both
parties agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation in August, 1987. A Court hearing
was held in Limerick on 27th October, 1987.
Claim (a) - Pay
BACKGROUND:
3. The Company did not make any offer on pay until the
conciliation conference. It stated at the initial meetings that
any offer made would be dependant on a resolution of the items on
the sick pay scheme and the holiday attendance bonus as these
represented a substantial cost to the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company made only one offer (4.50%) which as a first
offer would be negotiable. No attempt was made by the
Company to improve on this offer as they knew the entire
package was being referred to the Court. Given the level
of activity and productivity the workers are aware that
the Company can afford a better offer than the present
one.
2 In fairness to the Company, they have not argued any
differently and when the Union quoted other settlements
with good employments in the area (details supplied to the
Court) the Company indicated that they believed agreement
could be amicably reached. The wage rates in place at
Amicon would be towards the middle of the scale in good
employments in the area and the workers would expect to do
as well in percentage terms as the average good
settlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1 The Company indicated at the outset of negotiations that
based upon agreement on the other items the settlement
would be in terms of something in excess of the consumer
price index (3.4%) and would be substantially less than
last years offer. The Company cannot see itself improving
upon the offer of 4.50% for 12 months effective 1st June,
1987. This offer is in line with the norm in the current
pay round.
2 The offer is the maximum the Company can afford taking
into account the saving which would be associated with the
Company's position on the sick pay scheme and the holiday
attendance bonus.
3 Given the diminished trading circumstances which the
Company is in and due to the fact that it is competing
with other companies within its own organisation (details
supplied to the Court) it is essential that the Company
remains competitive. Under the circumstances the Company
is of the view that its offer is fair and reasonable and
should be accepted.
Claim (b) - Holiday Attendance Bonus
BACKGROUND:
6. The bonus was introduced in 1985 in consultation with the
Union. Payment of the bonus at present is based on the workers
attendance record on a quarterly basis. If a worker has an
absence of 2 days or less per quarter a 100% bonus is payable.
Absence of 3 days per quarter a 50% bonus is payable for that
quarter. Absence of 4 days per quarter a 25% bonus is payable for
that quarter. No bonus is payable for absences of 5 days or more
for that quarter. The Union sought an increase in the attendance
bonus to #350 from #250. The Company rejected the claim and
sought to have the basis on which the bonus is payable altered.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1 The Union originally claimed a summer holiday bonus and
reluctantly agreed to the fairly stringent terms proposed
by the Company. However the Union cannot accept the
sweeping changes proposed by the Company because, as can
be seen, the very minimal absence would exclude an
individual from any bonus. In addition, it would mean
that an individual would have no chance of making up for
previous absence.
2 The Union believes that the Company's tactic on this is to
distract the Union's attention from the very small amount
of the bonus itself. The Union is asking the Court to
recommend that the terms not be disimproved but that the
amount be increased on 2 accounts (i) to recognise that if
the amount remains at #250 the value will have decreased
and (ii) so that the value would be increased, not just
maintained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1 When the holiday attendance bonus was introduced it was
envisaged that it would be self financing by offering the
workers a bonus for an acceptable level of attendance. In
seeking to put forward alternative proposals the Company
is giving an opportunity to prove the viability of the
scheme rather than withdrawing it as it has clearly failed
to achieve its stated objective of improving attendance at
work.
2 Under the Company's proposals a person whose absence is
less than 2.50% would receive the full bonus whereas under
the old scheme if a person was absent for up to 25% of the
year they would still get a 75% bonus had all that absence
been in the same quarter (details supplied to the Court).
It is clear that the system is not producing the desired
results and therefore it is imperative that there be a
change in the system from a quarterly to an annual basis
and that the payment be as proposed by the Company.
Claim (c) - Service Pay Increase
9. Both parties agreed to discuss this item at local level.
Claim (d) - Increase in rate of pay for canteen worker
BACKGROUND:
10. The canteen worker is currently on the lowest rate in the
Company (#3.45 per hour). The Union are claiming that the rate
should be brought into line with the job rate (i.e. diafilter
rate).
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
11. The canteen has recently been upgraded and improved making
for an increased workload and responsibility for the canteen
worker. Given the importance and responsibility of the job the
Union believes the job or diafilter rate should be applied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
12. The Company rejected the claim for an increase in this rate
as the current rate of #3.45 per hour, (which corresponds to the
lowest rate in the Company) is the appropriate rate. No
substantial case was made at the initial meeting on this
particular issue, other than to say that there had been an
increase in the work for the person in the Canteen. This increase
in the work was nothing more than taking up the slack in the
canteen person's day. Previously the person in the canteen had
several hours per day free and this time is now being utilised.
The Company therefore have nothing to offer on this particular
point.
Claim (e) - Sick Pay Scheme
BACKGROUND:
13. The sick pay scheme was introduced in 1984 following
discussions between the Company and the Union. The scheme, which
is non-contributory, applies to all hourly paid workers between 18
and 65 years - who have completed 6 months employment and have no
more than 5 days absence within that period. The scheme applies
for 13 weeks and provides for payment of 90% of nett basic pay for
this period. The Company sought to introduce changes to the
scheme as outlined in paragraph 2.2. Their proposals were
rejected by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1 The Company believes that the payment of 90% of nett basic
pay adds to the absenteeism problem which the Company has.
The Company also believes that some employees are better
off in financial terms by being out, (and saving the costs
associated with being at work), than they would be if they
were at work. However, it has been the Company's
experience that having a 13 week payment of 90% of nett
basic pay does add to the length of time people spend out
on sick leave. In addition to this a number of employees
have a poor level of attendance from one year to the next.
For this reason the Company proposed that the benefits
under the scheme would be pro rated to reflect the level
of attendance in the previous calendar year. The Company
is clearly of the view that this will avoid the repetition
of previous years whereby some employees have taken up to
and including their full entitlement under the sick pay
scheme over a period of time.
2 The Company strongly believes that there has been abuse of
the facility by individual employees during the past
number of years and the Company have clearly stated to the
Union that it sees its proposals as being a better
alternative to the withdrawal of the scheme. It believes
its proposals are reasonable in so far as the length of
time paid for under the scheme has not been changed, but
the level of benefit has been reduced (reflecting the
reduced cost associated with not having to be at work over
an extended period). Also the pro rating of benefits
based upon the level of attendance in previous calendar
years is in the Company's view a reasonable position as it
will take away the incentive which currently exists for
some employees who stay out on extended sick leave.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
15. 1 The scheme, while a reasonable one, is by no means
exceptional in its terms. It is recognised that a sick
pay scheme is an essential part of workers' conditions.
2 The Union refute the argument that workers are better off
when out sick. Heavy medical expenses are incurred and
with the cutbacks in the health service, the introduction
of extra health charges and also cuts in social welfare
benefits, illness is becoming more and more costly and any
reduction in the agreed schedule of payment under the sick
pay scheme cannot be tolerated.
3 The Company maintain that the scheme is being abused.
That is a matter between the Company and the individuals
concerned. The entire workforce should not be penalised
because of this. Absenteeism among workers for paid and
unpaid sick leave for 1986 was 5.46%. Of this 5 people
had long periods of illness (details supplied to the
Court). In no way could the Company claim that this is
excessive.
Claim (f) - Temporary Worker Agreement
16. Both parties agreed to discuss this at local level.
RECOMMENDATION:
16. Claim (a) - 27th Pay Round
The Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
Claim (b) - Holiday Attendance Bonus
The Court does not recommend any change in the scheme.
Claim (e) - Sick Pay Scheme
The Court accepts that the Company's obligation under this scheme
is limited to payment of 90% net basic take home pay after all
elements have been taken into account.
Question of abuse of these schemes should be dealt with through
existing disciplinary schemes.
Claim (c) - Service Pay
The Court notes the parties are prepared to negotiate this issue
in 1988.
Claim (d) - Increase in Pay for Canteen Worker
The Court recommends concession of this claim.
Claim (f) - Temporary Employees
The Court notes that both parties are prepared to discuss this
issue and recommends that such discussions be completed by the end
of this year.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 1987 John M Horgan
MD/PG Chairman