Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88322 Case Number: LCR11883 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GOODALLS OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of approximately forty permanent and casual workers for a wage increase and improvement in conditions under the 27th wage round.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the Employer's offer in respect of wage
increases, including the relevant clause of the Agreement of the
29th February, 1988, be accepted.
The Court, under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery,
does not recommend concession of the Union's claims in respect of
increased service pay, improved annual leave or payment of
additional bonus.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88322 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11883
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GOODALLS OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately forty permanent and casual
workers for a wage increase and improvement in conditions under
the 27th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1932 and it manufactures a wide
variety of sauces, salad creams, mayonnaises and spices. The
Company also imports and distributes various food products.
3. The current wage round is due from the 1st September, 1987.
At a local level meeting the Union lodged the following claim:
- 6% or £8 on basic pay
- improvement in service pay to
4 years' service £1.00
8 " " £1.50
12 " " £2.00
16 " " £2.50
20 " " £3.00
- improvement in service leave to
4 years' service 1 days extra leave
8 " " 2 " " "
12 " " 3 " " "
16 " " 4 " " "
20 " " 5 " " "
- bonus to be paid on overtime production.
Following further local level meetings in October/November the
Company pressed for the implementation of the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery. This was unacceptable to the
Union and the parties jointly referred the case to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 12th November,
1987. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference on
the 1st December, 1987. Direct talks resumed between the parties
on 15th January, 1988 (details supplied to the Court). The
parties reached agreement on the terms of an offer as set out at
appendix 'A' to this recommendation. The workers rejected the
offer, in particular the phrase in Clause I:
".....there will be no cost increasing claims for the duration
of the agreement."
At a further meeting held on 29th February, 1988 the Company
clarified the position in relation to this issue and agreed to add
to the text as follows:
"It is accepted that nothing in this clause precludes either
party from pursuing issues, including those of productivity,
the settlement of which would be on a self financing basis."
However, no agreement was reached and a Court hearing was held on
the 3rd May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The basic pay that exists in the Company, is low and has
traditionally been brought to a 'liveable' amount by overtime
working. Differentials apply to a minority of the workforce
but for these it is a boost to the low base rate. The
workforce is determined to bring up the basic rate and secure
improvements in conditions which are overdue. Records for the
27th wage round (as of 1st February, 1988) show an average
cumulative increase of 5.7% (details supplied to the Court).
2. Service pay in the Company is currently £1 for five years,
£1.50 for ten to fifteen years, £2 for fifteen to twenty years
and £2.50 for over twenty years. The Company has a number of
long service workers and the current level of service pay is
in no way an adequate reward for the additional skills and
competence accumulated by service. The Union is of the view
that the Company could have made some effort to either
increase the current service pay scale, compress it or make an
additional payment.
3. The current service leave is one day after five years and
two days after ten years. The improvement the Union is
seeking in this area is due to the difficult conditions under
which the claimants work. In general the work is repetitive,
physically difficult, high output and stressful. Service
leave is an important health aspect in the job and the Union
is disappointed that the Company did not consider improvements
in any way.
4. The current bonus system is production related and can
yield up to 33 1/3% which is normal. However, when overtime
is being worked on production work, the bonus stops at normal
finishing time and the operatives just get paid the overtime
value. This is a contradiction of a production bonus and in
effect gives massive productivity with a very small return to
the operative. In a production bonus scheme the input of the
operative should be directly related to the output. As this
scheme stands it gives no reward whatever for worker input
during overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company could not concede the claims being sought by
the Union and considered the position to be more than
adequately covered by the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery.
2. The Company's offer was rejected by the workforce because
of as the Company understands it, the phrase in Clause 1
relating to no cost increasing claims during the Agreement.
At the meeting on the 29th February, the Company clarified the
position in relation to this issue and agreed to add to the
text. To date, no good reason has been put forward to the
Company as to the basis for the continued rejection of the
offer by the claimants. The offer is a good one given the
circumstances prevailing at present within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the Employer's offer in respect of wage
increases, including the relevant clause of the Agreement of the
29th February, 1988, be accepted.
The Court, under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery,
does not recommend concession of the Union's claims in respect of
increased service pay, improved annual leave or payment of
additional bonus.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd June, 1988. John O'Connell
DH/JC Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX "A"
1. This agreement includes all the terms, conditions and clauses
as set out in the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) which
for convenience are not reproduced here, but are taken as read
and agreed. It includes the 27th Pay Round and there will be
no cost increasing claims for the duration of the agreement.
2. This Agreement supplements the terms and conditions contained
in and arising from previous Agreements except where they are
specifically modified by the terms as set out here.
3. This Agreement applies for the period to 1st July, 1990.
4. Pay will be increased as set out in the PNR and will be
applied in 3 phases as follows:-
1. Under PNR Clause 2, £4.00 on the standard basic rate
pro-rata for others, to be applied from 1st September,
1987.
2. The PNR Pay Clauses will apply to all from 1st July, 1988.
3. The PNR Pay Clauses will apply to all from 1st July, 1989.
5. The Procedural Agreement, the text of which has already
been agreed, will come into effect with this Agreement.