Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88376 Case Number: LCR11940 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PENN CHEMICALS B.V. - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION |
Claim on behalf of 48 process operators and 18 maintenance craftsmen for an increase in pay under the 27th wage round.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has carefully considered the issues before it. The
Court is concerned that the existance of twoforms of wage
determination within the same workforce will in the future, as at
present give rise to difficulties for all concerned.
The Court will not recommend increases which are in excess of the
terms of the provisions of the National Programme, and recommends
that the Company's present offer in this respect be accepted by
the workers to whom it is offered. The Court further recommends
that the parties meet to attempt to reconcile their differing
approaches to the question of wage adjustments.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88376 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11940
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PENN CHEMICALS B.V.
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 48 process operators and 18 maintenance
craftsmen for an increase in pay under the 27th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of the U.S. Company Smith Kline
Beckman Corporation. It employs 260 people at its plant in Cork
which is one of seven plants in the Chemical Division of the
Corporation supplying markets throughout the world.
3. The 26th wage round expired on 30th November, 1987. A claim
under the 27th wage round was lodged in the normal manner and at
an early stage during the negotiations the Unions indicated their
willingness to accept the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery.
4. The Unions learned that the Company had conceded increases of
between 7% to 8% to other workers within the plant who had signed
personal contracts with the Company. These contracts place the
individuals on a merit payment system and their pay is reviewed
every February. The Unions then sought similar increases for
their members who were still within the collective bargaining
system.
5. The Company refused to exceed the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery as it contended it was precluded from doing so
under the terms of the Programme.
6. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 24th March, 1988. A Conciliation Conference was
held on 19th May, 1988. As no agreement was possible both parties
agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 8th June, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (I.C.T.U.) takes the
view that the Company's interpretation of the Programme is
entirely perverse, as an underlying theme in the Programme
for National Recovery is the principle of equity. The
Programme cannot legitimately be used as a mechanism for
discriminating against workers within the collective
bargaining system. If the Company voluntarily exceeds the
terms of the Programme for one section of its employees,
there is no reason why it should not enter into a similar
arrangement with another section of employees.
2. The Company is in breach of the Company/Union Agreement
which states that -
"The rates of pay found in this Agreement shall be fixed
while the Agreement is in operation. All other
conditions of employment shall continue in force until
such time as all parties to the Agreement reach full and
final agreement to any modification".
3. The industrial relations system in this country is based
on voluntary collective bargaining - with the emphasis on
collective. This concept lies at the heart of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1946. Payments on an individual basis are an
unsavoury transatlantic import and are wholly subversive to a
healthy system of industrial relations. The so-called
grievance procedure available to those workers who have
signed individual contracts is devoid of natural justice in
that the Company is the final arbiter at each stage of the
proceedings.
4. The main thrust of the Unions' argument is that there
should be an overall common level of increases across the
factory under the 27th Round. The Unions are not opposed to
the introduction of an incremental scale - but subject to an
agreed set of criteria for access to and progress along these
scales, and for an impartial method of dealing with any
anomalies or injustices which might arise.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Since the expiry date of the previous agreement is after
November 19th, 1987, the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery apply to any new agreement.
2. The Unions concerned are members of Congress and as such,
are parties to the Programme for National Recovery.
3. Paragraph I of the Agreement between the I.C.T.U. and the
F.U.E. provides for pay increases to be calculated on the
basis of -
3% on the first £120 of basic weekly pay
and
2% on any amount of basic weekly pay over £120.
4. There is no provision in the text of that Agreement which
would deem additional cost increasing claims to be
admissable. In fact the Agreement states; "It is agreed
that no further cost increasing claims will be made on
employers". In the circumstances, the Company considers the
Union case before the Court to be in conflict with the
ratification of the Programme for National Recovery, to which
the Unions and the Company are parties.
5. The policy of the Court which was set out in a statement
issued shortly after the ratification of the agreement
between I.C.T.U. and F.U.E. said "The Court regards the
ratification of the agreements as a major stimulus to
industrial harmony ....... and its policy will be to support
the implementation of those agreements". The Union's in this
case, are, in effect, requesting the Court to revise that
policy statement.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has carefully considered the issues before it. The
Court is concerned that the existance of twoforms of wage
determination within the same workforce will in the future, as at
present give rise to difficulties for all concerned.
The Court will not recommend increases which are in excess of the
terms of the provisions of the National Programme, and recommends
that the Company's present offer in this respect be accepted by
the workers to whom it is offered. The Court further recommends
that the parties meet to attempt to reconcile their differing
approaches to the question of wage adjustments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
7th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
P.W./M.D.