Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8892 Case Number: LCR11753 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WILKES CERDAC LIMITED - and - IRISH PRINTERS UNION |
Interpretation of an agreement relating to a new technology payment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties and also the terms of the Agreement made between them
in July, 1986, is of the view that the arrangements made to
implement that Agreement should be allowed to stand. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8892 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11753
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WILKES CERDAC LIMITED
and
IRISH PRINTERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of an agreement relating to a new technology
payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. A number of conciliation conferences took place between the
Company and the Union in 1986, regarding a claim by the Union for
enhanced payment for using new multi-form equipment. Proposals
emanating from these conferences were the subject of further
discussion at local level. On 23rd July, 1986, agreement was
reached. The agreement provided for the payment of a 22.5%
"photo-composition rate", which was to include the absorption of
all "merit money" paid up to that time. The Union accepts that it
was agreed to the absorption of "merit money" but insists that
this absorption did not apply to elements of pay described as
house and/or machine rates. The Union claims that local officers
who enquired about the question of a house rate, were informed
that one did not exist. In 1987 however, the Union claims it was
discovered that there was a house rate of 4% plus £2.60.
Accordingly, it claims that the Management's statements in 1986
that there was no house rate was incorrect. The Union are seeking
the payment of this 4% plus £2.60. The Company for its part
insists that the 1986 agreement provided for the absorption of
everything above the basic rate, the only exceptions being machine
money and service pay. No agreement could be reached at local
level, and on 6th October, 1987, the matter was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A Conciliation
Conference took place on 28th November, 1987, and again on 25th
January, 1988. No agreement was reached, and on 2nd February,
1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 25th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The acceptance of the photo-composition rate of 22.5% and
the absorption of merit money into that rate was done on the
understanding that the house rate would not be absorbed. The
actual implementation of the recommendation was discussed at
house level. The local officers raised the question of a
house rate and were informed by the Company that a house rate
did not exist. This statement was made on a number of
occasions, and the rates were adjusted on this premise.
2. In 1987, during a joint Union Management investigation
into the wage structure in the Company, it emerged that a
house rate of 4% plus 2.60 existed, and had been in operation
for a number of years. This means that the Management's
statement regarding the house-rate was incorrect, and as a
consequence the worker have been underpaid to that extent
when calculating the photo-composition rate.
3. The Union accepts that the Company has made a genuine
error but it does not accept that the workers should be made
to suffer the consequence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Directly related to the Union's claim is the 1987
settlement of a claim on behalf of 17 I.P.U. machine
operatives for increases in machine rates for "Harris" and
"Ofcon" machines. In this regard Labour Court Recommendation
11,098 provided for "a 17% increase on the basic rate subject
to absorption by payments over the basic in respect of the
Harris... and an increase of 8% similarly calculated in
respect of the Ofcon... machine". In the wake of the Union's
rejection of that recommendation a meeting was held on 11th
June, 1987, at which payment of rates on the machine claim
was clarified. It was agreed that the Company would only
absorb the machine money which in the case of the Harris was
12%, thereby yielding a 5% increase with merit money being
allowed to continue. The Company considers that its
concession to the Union in May, 1987, i.e. allowing merit
money (inclusive of 4.5% and £2.60) to continue, has
precipitated the current claim. Ironically during the course
of the 1987 (Harris) negotiations the Union reassured the
Company that its claim would not have repercussive effects on
the Company.
2. The Company would further emphasise the distinction
between the 1986 and 1987 agreements. The workers herein
concerned are party to the July 1986 agreement which provided
for the absorption of merit money and clause 5 prevented any
consequential claims arising. The Union's claim is in clear
breach of that agreement.
3. The Company would also suggest that if the four
compositors involved were genuinely concerned about the
extent of absorption, the matter would have been queried in
July, 1986. Agreement was reached having established the
'bottom line' figure. The fact that subsequent claims have
been made and inferences drawn that there were monies in
dispute at the time of the agreement, causes the Company to
seriously question the Union's sincerity in entering into
negotiations and abiding by agreements. The Union's attempt
to breach the 1986 agreement is totally unacceptable to the
Company.
4. The Court should also understand that the Company is
competing in an extremely competitive domestic market for its
product. This market has been infiltrated by many low cost
agents which has forced the Company to develop a niche for
high quality product. Whilst the Company recognised that
demand for 'letter press' work is contracting the Company is
endeavouring to pursue this work at a price. This ensures
that existing machines are kept running where otherwise the
Company would have had to rationalise its operation. The
Union's attitude on this occasion is less than constructive
in the context of the original agreement reached and the
difficult market with which the Company is faced at the best
of times.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties and also the terms of the Agreement made between them
in July, 1986, is of the view that the arrangements made to
implement that Agreement should be allowed to stand. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st March, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
P.F./P.W. Deputy Chairman