Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88436 Case Number: LCR11948 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RIDGE TOOL COMPANY - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 100 workers for an increase under the 27th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the workers concerned accept the
Company's offer to implement the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88436 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11948
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RIDGE TOOL COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 100 workers for
an increase under the 27th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the expiry of the previous wage round on the 31st
December, 1987, the Unions, on 4th February, 1988, lodged the
following claims:
£12 increase on basic rates of pay,
1 extra day's holiday,
parity with staff in relation to VHI,
increase in compassionate leave on the birth of own child from
1 to 3 days and 1 day's leave upon death of aunt or uncle.
The Company rejected the claims and offered the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery, (P.N.R.), which the Company felt
obliged to uphold. The Unions maintained that the P.N.R. was not
a binding agreement and that a number of companies had in fact
negotiated settlements in excess of the terms of the P.N.R.
Further meetings were held between the parties, however, as
agreement could not be reached the issue was referred on 10th May,
1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 25th May, 1988. No agreement
was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
21st June, 1988, in Cork.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is currently doing very well and this is not
just a cyclical upturn. The workers have proved themselves to
be a highly skilled workforce. They have fully lived up to
the commitment given to have stability and industrial peace
during the period of the previous agreement.
2. The Unions' offer (details supplied to the Court) in
relation to the Summer bonus is a fair and reasonable
compromise. A Christmas bonus had originally been offered by
the Company at the start-up of the operation. It was for £50,
which was the equivalent of a week's wages then. It has never
been adjusted to keep in line with inflation and is now worth
less than 1/3 of a week's basic wage. The issue of the
Christmas bonus was deferred for the duration of the last wage
agreement, at the request of the Company. The Company gave a
commitment to deal with the issue prior to the P.N.R. being
finalised.
3. Many companies have negotiated and agreed terms in excess
of the P.N.R. which is not a binding agreement. The Company
is in a position to pay more as they have had a very
profitable year. Order books are full and excessive overtime
is being worked. The P.N.R. is not an incomes policy and has
been modified by companies to suit the needs of their
particular situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Unions' claims are unrealistic both in terms of the
reality existing in Ireland and in the light of the Company's
competitive position. The Unions ignore the fact that if the
Company is to survive and prosper it must be competitive both
within the Ridge Group of companies and with external
competition. The parent company currently has a 4 year pay
freeze and the weakness of the U.S. dollar mitigates against
the Irish operation. The Company should not be adding to its
payroll costs.
2. Recognising that the Company has a part to play in Ireland
and that the Government and Social Partners have seen the
necessity to formulate the P.N.R., the Company believes it
should implement the pay terms which form part of that
Programme. Indeed the P.N.R. has influenced the Company's
investment plans for Ireland in a significant way.
3. In the circumstances the Company believes the Unions
should accept the terms of the P.N.R. and that no further cost
increasing claims served on the Company for the duration of
the programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the workers concerned accept the
Company's offer to implement the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
13th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.