Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88269 Case Number: LCR11896 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON AND COMPANY - and - GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS |
Claims, on behalf of 200 craftsmen in relation to beer allowances.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend a restoration of the beer allowance of
20 pints per fortnight as claimed by the Union nor does it
recommend any alteration in the present allowances for other
products.
The Court, however, recommends that Management should concede the
claim for an increase from two months to three months for
validation of beer dockets. In relation to the claim concerning
the period for which an employee must adhere to a particular
option, the Court recommends that the present period be reduced to
18 weeks.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88269 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR11896
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON AND COMPANY
and
GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Claims, on behalf of 200 craftsmen in relation to beer
allowances.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to July 1981 the craftsmen enjoyed a beer allowance of
twenty pint bottles of stout per fortnight plus one pint for 2-3
hours overtime and 1 pint for every three hours overtime after
that. In July 1981 the "Future Competitiveness Plan" (FCP) was
introduced which reduced the beer allowance to 12 pint bottles of
stout per fortnight. The matter was the subject of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 7904, dated 22nd March, 1983, which stated:
"As the Court is of the view that the reduction in the
allowance was reasonable at the time in the context of the
'Future Competitiveness Plan' and as the Court would have so
recommended if it had been asked to investigate the matter
prior to the Company's action, the Court does not now
recommend any compensation in relation to the way in which
the reduction in the allowance was made nor does it recommend
that it be restored to its original level".
3. In 1986 the Company introduced a scheme of providing other
Company beverages as an alternative to stout as part of its
integrated catering programme. The matter of integrated catering
was the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No. 10647 which
recommended acceptance of the Company's proposals on integrated
catering. The current allowance of products other than stout
(Harp, Smithwicks and Kaliber) is 24 half-pints every three weeks.
Beer dockets are valid for a period of 2 months and each worker
must stick with the same product option for a period of 30 weeks.
4. At a meeting on 27th October, 1987, the Skilled Group of
Unions sought:
(i) restoration of an allowance of 20 pints of stout per
fortnight,
(ii) an increase in the allowance of other products to 24 half
pints.
(iii) an increase in the validity of beer dockets to 3 months,
and
(iv) a reduction in the period for which one must stick to a
particular product option.
The Company rejected these claims and the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 9th April, 1987.
No agreement was reached at conciliation conferences held on 6th
August, 1987 and on 9th February, 1988. The matter was referred
to a full Labour Court hearing which was held on 26th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The reasons given for the reduction in the stout allowance
are no longer valid. In March 1983 the Court accepted the
Company's argument of the need to remain competitive. The
Company indicated the need to cut costs in order to remain
profitable. The position in relation to profitability has
improved substantially since 1982 and the argument that the
Company is not profitable enough must no longer be accepted.
2. Since 1982 the number of craftsmen employed by the Company
has been reduced by about 50%. Therefore, the cost of
restoring the original beer allowance of 20 pints per
fortnight is relatively less. Furthermore, contractor's
employees working in the brewery no longer receive a beer
allowance. The Unions feel that the reduced numbers and
increased profits provide a sound basis for a review of the
decision taken in 1983.
3. Should the stout allowance be increased it is fair that
the allowance of alternative products should be
proportionately increased.
4. The system of beer dockets is designed to allow workers to
accumulate a reasonable amount of beer, particularly for
Christmas. The Unions do not accept that concession of this
claim would put an unsustainable burden on the Company's
storage capacities.
5. The Unions consider it excessive that employees must stick
to the same product for 30 weeks. It is considered that the
duration of this period should be the same as that of the
validity of beer dockets.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company is not prepared to incur an additional cost of
£375,000 per annum for claims made by the Skilled Group which
have already been through the procedures and on which the
Labour Court has made recommendations. (These costs are based
on current choice patterns - they could increase to
approximately £690,000 if choice patterns altered due to
concession of the Skilled Group's claims).
2. As part of the Company's personnel policy to remove, where
possible, conditions of employment which unnecessarily divide
the Brewery Community, it introduced in 1986 integrated
catering facilities. Included in the integrated catering
package were the current harmonised beer arrangements, for
those who use James's Gate.
3. The Company's extensive benefit package including the
current entitlements under the free beer arrangements, is one
of the best in the country.
4. In the context of the current competitive pressures on the
Dublin Company which necessitated a Continuing Competitiveness
Plan, any increase in costs will have to be funded. An
essential ingredient in the Continuing Competitiveness Plan is
the re-negotiation of the benefits package whereby the Company
is endeavouring to reduce its costs or, failing to do so, to
reduce the contents of the benefits package.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not recommend a restoration of the beer allowance of
20 pints per fortnight as claimed by the Union nor does it
recommend any alteration in the present allowances for other
products.
The Court, however, recommends that Management should concede the
claim for an increase from two months to three months for
validation of beer dockets. In relation to the claim concerning
the period for which an employee must adhere to a particular
option, the Court recommends that the present period be reduced to
18 weeks.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
AK/PG Deputy Chairman