Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87928 Case Number: LCR11656 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TRAVENOL LABORATORIES - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 170 production operatives for a wage increase.
Recommendation:
6. The Court notes that the Union is prepared to accept a
compromise proposal which provides for the varying of the terms of
the agreement between the I.C.T.U., the F.U.E. and the C.I.F. in
its application in this Company. The point of disagreement is the
extent of the variation which should be agreed to meet the terms
of the commitment entered into by the Company in order to bring
about a reversal of the closure decision. The Court, having
regard to the proportion of the employees who have already
accepted the Company's proposal and the terms of the commitment
recommneds that the Company's latest offer be accepted subject to
an amendment to provide that at the end of the agreement, basic
rates should be increased to the level they would have been at if
the first annual increase had been applied to them.
The Court also recommends that for the future where issues arise
which are common to both plants, they should be negotiated
jointly, the balloting should be on a joint basis and the majority
decision should be accepted.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87928 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11656
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TRAVENOL LABORATORIES
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 170 production
operatives for a wage increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The last pay round agreement expired in September, 1987. The
parties entered into negotiations for a new agreement in late
September, 1987. These discussions took place against the
background of the proposed closure of the Company which had been
announced in 1985, and was to have been implemented by 1987. This
decision was rescinded by the parent Company in June, 1987
following a number of changes within the Company's two plants,
(Castlebar and Swinford) such as an improvement in the product
cost structure and improved quality levels. A committment was
also given by the Company to corporate management that there would
be no increases in basic rates of pay in 1988, as part of the deal
that allowed the Company to remain in Ireland.
3. In the negotiations on the pay round the Company indicated
that it was prepared to make a lump-sum payment of #300 tax-free,
(a special arrangement reached with the Revenue Commissioners), in
lieu of an increase in basic rates for 1988. In 1989 and 1990 the
terms of the 2nd and 3rd years of the National Plan would apply.
This offer was put to the staff in both plants and accepted by a
large majority in the Swinford plant but rejected by the staff in
the Castlebar plant. An improved offer, with 1 days additional
earned leave was also rejected by the staff in the Castlebar
plant. The Union informed the Company that it would go along with
the commitment which the Company had given in respect of no basic
pay increase for 1988, provided that any losses which staff
incurred in 1988, against the terms of the National Plan, would be
made up over the two remaining years of the plan. The Company
maintained that as the offer had been accepted in one plant and if
looked at globally, a clear majority in both plants voted in its
favour, the Company could not seek approval for increases over and
above the terms of the National Plan. On 27th November, 1987, the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. As agreement was not reached at a conciliation conference
held on 3rd December, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 14th December, 1987, in Castlebar.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers feel that they have put up with some adverse
conditions since the closure announcement on the basis that
it was only a matter of a short time before they finally lost
their jobs. They have worked harder since that decision was
rescinded, in order to meet the Company's production
requirements. The Company have said they are #2.5 million
positive to budget this year and the staff feel they should
benefit from this, even if this benefit has to be spread over
three years.
2. The agreement which the Union has had with the Company
for the last two years gave the staff terms which were
somewhat lower than those available to other workers in this
sector during that period. The agreement was concluded in an
atmosphere of redundancies, and it is fair to say that the
terms reflect this to some extent. The staff, while
disappointed with the terms of the National Plan, are
reluctantly prepared to accept its terms, but will accept
nothing short of these.
3. The Union seeks the full terms of the National Plan,
varied to allow the Company maintain its commitment for 1988,
but ensuring that staff receive the full terms of the plan by
the end of its lifetime. The Union regards this as
reasonable since it is doing its best to recognise
commitments entered into by the Company and also because the
Company is not pleading inability to pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company outlined in detail the background to its
commitment to the corporation that there would be no base
labour cost increase in 1988. This was a key critical factor
in getting the Castlebar closure decision reversed. This
commitment must be honoured.
2. For all hourly paid employees, the #300 lump-sum amounts
to the same as or greater than the terms for the 1st year of
the National Plan. The Company has agreed to implement, in
full, the terms of the National Plan as they apply to private
industry and as outlined in 'Proposals for Agreement between
the I.C.T.U., the F.U.E. and the C.I.F.'
3. The Company is of the view that it has done everything
possible to achieve a successful conclusion to the dispute.
The Company has offered significant improvements in the
non-pay areas, (details provided to the Court).
4. In an effort to fully resolve the matter and on the basis
of acceptance of the total package, the Company granted an
additional earned days holiday. (Based on 70 days perfect
attendance).
5. 5. The negotiations for the two plants were conducted
jointly and the Company has done everything possible to
satisfy the difficulties of the minority who rejected the
overall package. However, the position of the large majority
who accepted the package must also be considered. The
combined voting results of the two plants indicate that over
70% of the staff are committed to the terms of the package.
It should also be understood that the commitment on base pay
given to the parent-Company will be applied at all levels
within the Company and as a consequence receives the support
of over 80% of all staff.
6. The staff realise that it is in everyone's long-term
interest to ensure that the commitment made is implemented so
that the Company's high positive perception and credibility
level within the corporation is maintained.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court notes that the Union is prepared to accept a
compromise proposal which provides for the varying of the terms of
the agreement between the I.C.T.U., the F.U.E. and the C.I.F. in
its application in this Company. The point of disagreement is the
extent of the variation which should be agreed to meet the terms
of the commitment entered into by the Company in order to bring
about a reversal of the closure decision. The Court, having
regard to the proportion of the employees who have already
accepted the Company's proposal and the terms of the commitment
recommneds that the Company's latest offer be accepted subject to
an amendment to provide that at the end of the agreement, basic
rates should be increased to the level they would have been at if
the first annual increase had been applied to them.
The Court also recommends that for the future where issues arise
which are common to both plants, they should be negotiated
jointly, the balloting should be on a joint basis and the majority
decision should be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
__________________________
22nd January, 1988
B.O'N/J.C. Chairman