Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87885 Case Number: LCR11611 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEXACO (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim under the 27th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the offer emanating from the
conciliation conference and accepted by the Company, be amended
from 2.50% for 7 months to 3% for 6 months (agreement to terminate
31/12/1987).
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87885 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11611
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TEXACO (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim under the 27th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 110 clerical workers, sales
representatives, and operational supervisors, employed by the
Company at its head office and at various locations throughout the
country. The 27th wage round was due in the Company from 1st
July, 1987. The Union, on behalf of the workers, served a claim
on the Company for a 5% increase in two phases of 3% and 2% over
12 months. This is the same as applied to the blue collar
workers. The Company was not prepared to concede the claim and
stated that any claim for similar treatment has to be considered
in the context of previous wage round developments. Similar
increases for both groups of workers were the norm until 1986, but
in that year different agreements (26th wage round) were
negotiated for the blue and white collar workers in the industry
generally. Agreement was not reached at local level, and on 17th
September, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 16th November, 1987. In the light of the 26th wage round, the
Company was only prepared to offer 2.50% for a 7 month agreement.
No agreement was reached, and on 24th November, 1987, the matter
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 7th
December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1986, when the operative staff opted for a 7 month
agreement, the Union were both surprised and concerned as it
ran counter to the norm for the round throughout industry.
Both Management and the Union were agreed that the longer 12
month agreement was more beneficial to both parties. Both
sides clearly knew that the starting and finishing dates for
any future agreements for the operative and white collar
grades were likely to be six (6) months apart and neither side
saw that as presenting any particular difficulty for the
future.
3. 2. In the context of the 27th round the settlement by the
operative staff (5% - 12 months) was very much in keeping with
the norm for the round. The Union acknowledged the reality of
that situation and rather than engage in a separate set of
negotiations confirmed that it too would settle for a similar
agreement. However, Management having paid one half the staff
5% - 12 months refused to extend the benefits of a similar
agreement to the other half of the staff albeit from an
operative date from 1st July, 1987. It is patently unfair and
completely contrary to normal industrial relations practice
for Texaco Management to attempt to justify their position.
There is a sense of grievance, and even outrage among the
workers at what is perceived as an attempt by Management to
"claw back" the benefits of the twelve months 26th round
agreement. The agreement was freely entered into by the
parties, and must stand concluded as of June, 1987.
3. The 27th round must be viewed in its own right in that the
operative staff in Texaco got 5% - 12 months; the norm for
the round throughout the economy (including at least one
L.C.R.) is approximately 5% for twelve months. The Union
requests the Court to recommend that the workers be given the
same 27th round settlement as has already been applied to
their operative colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In considering the claim the Company must have regard to
various factors, such as decreased demand, increased costs,
and its competitive position. These are the facts of life in
the market place and cannot be ignored.
2. Wage rounds within the Company have consistently provided
similar settlements, both in terms of percentage increase and
duration, to all categories. Most recently, the combined
effect of the 26th and 27th wage rounds provided 8.50% over 19
months, (expiry on December, 31st, 1987) to the operative
group in Texaco and indeed to the majority of the industry.
The "gap" which now exists between the clerical workers and
their operative colleagues is 2.50% and seven months. The
Union's claim for 5% for 12 months, far from being a similar
settlement, seeks to extend both the percentage increase and
duration significantly beyond the settlement reached with
their operative colleagues who traditionally were very closely
aligned.
3. It can be demonstrated that the Company's offer of 2.50%,
(if considered in the context of both the 26th and 27th wage
rounds) would provide an almost identical settlement for the
white collar workers as for their blue collar counterparts
(details supplied to Court).
4. The Company does not believe that it would now be
reasonable to create a significant disparity between the two
groups who have been very closely aligned, and feel strongly
that such a situation, which the Union claim seeks to bring
about, would undoubtedly and inevitably lead to anomaly type
claims and consequent serious industrial relations problems.
4. 5. The Union's claim for a cost of living increase totalling
5% must also be considered in the light of comparable
inflation statistics. For the period covered by the combined
26th and 27th rounds, i.e. 19 months to December1987/January
1988, inflation is of the order of 3.5%. During this period,
cost of living settlements agreed with the Union totalled 6%.
The claim therefore, cannot be justified in the context of
inflation running at 3.5%. It should also be noted that
during this period the Union benefited from a 2% productivity
increase, effective from February, 1st 1987.
6. The Company would submit that its remuneration is
exceptional by any standards, and equates with the best
available in the industry.
7. Given the extremely difficult trading conditions in our
market place today, the Company repeats that it cannot and
should not have to bear costs which are not common to the
industry. The Union claim for 5% is unjustified and
unrealistic and the Company is not in a position to concede
such a claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the offer emanating from the
conciliation conference and accepted by the Company, be amended
from 2.50% for 7 months to 3% for 6 months (agreement to terminate
31/12/1987).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
31st December, 1987 Evelyn Owens
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman