Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87811 Case Number: LCR11629 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH KENNEL CLUB LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 11 workers for - (a) an increase in wages and the introduction of a wages scale, and (b) the deduction of Union dues at source.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered all the evidence presented by the
parties is of the view that the introduction of pay scales is not
warranted at this time. The Court recommends in the circumstances
that the parties should negotiate appropriate rates of pay for the
claimants as soon as possible.
The Court also recommends that management should arrange for the
deduction of union dues at source at an early date.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87811 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11629
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH KENNEL CLUB LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 11 workers for -
(a) an increase in wages and the introduction of a wages
scale, and
(b) the deduction of Union dues at source.
BACKGROUND:
2. The last agreement on pay between the parties terminated on
30th June, 1987. The Union lodged a claim on behalf of the
workers concerned, who are employed in a clerical capacity. They
all have individual rates of pay, ranging from #75 for a
probationer to #154.72 for a supervisor. As no agreement could be
reached at local level, the matter was referred, on 4th September,
1987, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
3. At a conciliation conference held on 8th October, 1987, the
Union proposed two scales that it would find acceptable. They are
as follows -
(a) Racing Board Clerical Officer Scale
11 point scale ranging from #125.17 to #185.48 and;
(b) Distributive Trade Clerical Scale
9 point scale ranging from #115 to #200.
These alternatives were not acceptable to the Company who proposed
the granting of individual increases to the workers concerned.
This would result in wage rates ranging from #100 after probation
to #160.90 for a supervisor. This offer was made subject to the
following conditions -
- That all staff sign in in the mornings.
- The lunch break be reduced from an hour and three quarters
to three quarters of an hour and staggered.
- Tea breaks to be staggered.
- The above increase to be effective from 1.7.1987 up to
31.12.1988.
- That this is in full and final settlement of all claims,
and there should be no cost increasing claims for the
duration of the agreement.
- The Company was not prepared to introduce deduction at
source at this time.
As this proposal was not acceptable to the Union the matter was
referred, on 30th October, 1987, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
26th November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has claimed that an annual increment would
put a strain on its finances. The Union does not accept that
an annual increment totalling, at most, #150 per week would
create any problem. In July, 1987, the Company appointed a
new Assistant Secretary. This is hardly an indication of
poverty.
2. Since 1985 people joining the organisation must pay a
membership fee which did not previously apply. The Company
also receives income by holding dog shows during the year.
3. The number of staff employed has decreased over the last
number of years. As a result the work load of those
remaining has increased. During holidays or absences due to
illness, all work is done by the remaining staff who
co-operate fully with the Company in this regard.
4. The existence of a wage scale is hardly a new departure
for an employer and the Union's claim in this regard
represents a modest aspiration. This aspiration and the
request for the introduction of a system for the deduction of
Union dues at source should reasonably be met by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The monies raised by the introduction of a levy on all
members in 1985, is only available for the purchase of new
premises and is not available for any other purpose. This
levy has resulted in a reduction in membership.
2. Registration costs have decreased in recent times and
this has led to a decrease in income of approximately 10% on
last year. Forecasts suggest that income for next year will
decrease by a further 8%. Therefore, any increase in wages
cannot be recouped from this source.
3. The workers concerned are employed to work a 34.25 hour
week. However, as a result of a bus strike, over a decade
ago, extra travelling time was allowed and staff now work
only 31.25 hours per week.
4. The increases offered by the Company compare favourably
with increases granted in 1987, on a national scale. They
are also in excess of the cost of living index forecasts for
the period covered by the proposed agreement.
5. Relations between the Company and the Union have been
strained. In view of this the Company would not be prepared
to extend to the Union the facility of deduction at source.
If the relationship were to improve, then this question could
be re-considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered all the evidence presented by the
parties is of the view that the introduction of pay scales is not
warranted at this time. The Court recommends in the circumstances
that the parties should negotiate appropriate rates of pay for the
claimants as soon as possible.
The Court also recommends that management should arrange for the
deduction of union dues at source at an early date.
~
Signed on bhela of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
11th January, 1988
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman