Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88366 Case Number: LCR11966 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HARRIS CALORIFIC IRELAND LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of approximately fifty employees for a wage increase under the 27th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. The Court recommends that the Company amends its offer to
provide for the terms of the National Programme to be introduced
with effect from the 1st January, 1988. The Court further
recommends that the Company compensate for the period following
May, 1987 by the payment of a lump sum of £100; this amount to be
payable in moities of £50 in December, 1988, and June, 1989.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88366 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11966
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HARRIS CALORIFIC IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF IRELAND)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately fifty employees for a wage
increase under the 27th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of gas cutting and
welding equipment at its factory in Rathnew, County Wicklow.
3. The claimants' 26th round terminated on the 31st May, 1987.
The Union subsequently lodged a claim for the following:
- 9% increase in pay rates
- one additional day's annual leave
- reduction in the working week from 40 to 39 hours
This claim was the subject of a Labour Court investigation on the
21st August, 1987, following which L.C.R. 11431 was issued which
stated:
"Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
particularly having regard to the current trading position of
the Company, the Court does not recommend concession of any
increase at the present time. However, the Court does
recommend that the parties meet in March of next year to
consider the situation as it then prevails. In the event of
agreement still not proving possible, the Court would be
prepared to hear the case again."
This recommendation was accepted by both sides.
3. The parties met at local level on the 21st March, 1988, where
the Company offered to implement the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.) from the 1st March, 1988. The Union
sought an offer for the period from May, 1987 but the Company was
not prepared to concede to this. As no agreement could be reached
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 8th April. A conciliation conference on the 11th May
failed to resolve the dispute and it was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held on the 30th June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the Court heard the case in August, 1987, the
Company's position has improved considerably and since the
early months of 1988, unlimited overtime has been available.
The Union does not believe that a Company which purports to be
losing money would be seeking to have its employees work
unlimited overtime at enhanced rates on an on-going basis.
2. The Company appears to think it can conveniently choose
the date from which the Programme for National Recovery is to
be implemented and that the claimants should simply write off
their losses for the period since May, 1987. The Union's view
is that if there are financial difficulties which would
preclude the Company meeting its obligations to the claimants
at present for the period from May, 1987 onwards, then it
should give a commitment to fulfill this obligation at a
future date when the financial position has improved
sufficiently.
3. The Programme for National Recovery must be implemented at
the earliest possible date but certainly no later than
January, 1988. If it is implemented from the 1st March the
claimants will lose out by moving from being 'early starters'
to 'late starters' and would also miss out a complete round
from May, 1987, to March, 1988.
4. If the Company, by pleading inability to pay, is allowed
to dictate when increases will take place, then the temptation
will be to make such pleas on a regular basis, whether
completely justified or not. This contrasts with its
obligations to suppliers of goods and services. The Company
cannot successfully plead inability to pay Telecom, the E.S.B.
or suppliers of raw material and likewise should not be
allowed to do so to employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. During the period between September to December, 1987, the
Company had an extremely low workload with orders for about
60% of its capacity. The remaining 40% capacity was utilised
by making for stock. In the first three months of 1988 the
position improved to the point where the Company had an
unexpectedly good order book which utilised all available
capacity and it had to take on a temporary shift of people in
order to cope with this demand. These swells in demand have
occurred in the past and have to be realistically viewed
against an annual 3% to 5% decline worldwide in demand for gas
cutting and welding equipment.
2. Ninety percent of the output from the Irish plant goes to
the U.S. parent company where it is combined with U.S.
produced accessories and sold on the American market. In this
regard, the fortunes of the Harris U.S. and Harris Ireland
operations are inextricably linked.
3. The recent improvement in the Company has been brought
about by a large scale reduction of costs and some increase in
the volume of sales. However, in order to keep moving forward
profitably, the Company must be careful of cost increases of
any sort. Hence, the Company is "cautiously optimistic" about
the future and this is reflected in its proposal to implement
the terms of the P.N.R. from the 1st March, 1988. However,
the Company cannot afford any retrospection prior to this
date.
4. It is not unusual for the Labour Court to recommend a pay
pause where a Company has been losing money over a number of
years. In the Company's case this has meant a pay pause from
the 1st June, 1987, for nine months to the 1st March, 1988.
To expect it to pay retrospection for this period is totally
unacceptable and contrary to L.C.R. 11431. The Court is
requested to recommend that the terms of the P.N.R. be
implemented with effect from the 1st March, 1988, and that no
retrospection is due for the period covered by L.C.R. 11431.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court recommends that the Company amends its offer to
provide for the terms of the National Programme to be introduced
with effect from the 1st January, 1988. The Court further
recommends that the Company compensate for the period following
May, 1987 by the payment of a lump sum of £100; this amount to be
payable in moities of £50 in December, 1988, and June, 1989.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
20th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.