Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87910 Case Number: LCR11755 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WILKES CERDAC LTIMITED - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Dispute concerning luncheon vouchers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimants should accept the Company's
proposal for a "buy-out" of the luncheon vouchers.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87910 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11755
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WILKES CERDAC LTIMITED
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning luncheon vouchers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1972, the Company concluded an agreement with
employee representatives regarding the provision of luncheon
vouchers. The agreement reached provided for the subsidisation of
lunches by the Company to the extent of 15p per employee per day.
In 1984, the Company was approached by the Union with a view to
having the luncheon vouchers increased in value. This the Company
declined to do. It maintained that such an increase would lead to
a significant rise in overhead costs. In 1985 the Company was of
the view that the luncheon voucher system had become unnecessary,
and that it represented an unwarranted cost to the Company. In
November, 1985, the Company met the Union to discuss these
matters. The proposals from that meeting were not successful in
resolving the issue. In 1986, the Company made a revised offer to
buy out the vouchers at four times their annual value. The offer
amounted to #115 gross. This was rejected by the Union on behalf
of the workers. The Union's position is that it wants the
vouchers to be retained, and their value to be increased. No
agreement could be reached on the matter at local level, and on
5th March, 1986, the matter was referred to the Conciliation
Service of the Labour Court. A Conciliation Conference took place
on 25th January, 1988. (An earlier conference was not required by
the parties). 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. When the luncheon vouchers were first introduced their
value was equivalent to 2.3% of the workers' basic weekly
wage. Today, the basic rate is #161.62 and 2.3% is
equivalent to #3.72. The value of the voucher has clearly
been substantially eroded, and it is the Union's view that
this value should now be restored. It is clear that on its
introduction the voucher was a major attraction to the
employees representing as it did an additional 2.3% of wages.
2. The Company has made an offer to buy out the vouchers but
it is the workers' wish that they be retained with an
appropriate increase in their value. The Union requests the
Court to recommend accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In attempting to resolve the luncheon voucher issue the
Company has been more than positive in its pursuit of a
settlement with the Union. In November, 1985, the Company
met with the Union and agreed settlement proposals which were
recommended for acceptance. Subsequently the Company was
extremely surprised to learn of the offers rejection by the
local Union membership.
2. In a further attempt to finalise agreement the Company
made a substantial improved offer of compensation to the
Union in July, 1986, in respect of a buy-out of the luncheon
voucher arrangement. On this occasion, the Company received
no formal communication from the Union detailing its position
on the matter. Nevertheless the Company has received
individual acceptance of the 'Buy-Out' arrangement from one
third of the employees including three Union members. More
recently the Company was advised that the Union was not
prepared to accept the Company's proposed compensation terms
despite the level of acceptance by individual employees. In
view of -
(i) the Union's willingness to recommend the November,
1985, settlement proposals for acceptance
(ii) the enhanced compensation terms offered in July, 1986,
and
(iii) the level of individual acceptance of those terms,
the Union's position is considered by the Company to be
inconsistent and illogical.
3. The Company's offer of July, 1986, whilst generous in
itself, must also be viewed in the context of it having been
made without reference to the detail of the November, 1972,
agreement nor indeed to any question of entitlement based on
length of service. In particular clause 5 stipulated that
where overtime was being worked, work might finish at 8.30
p.m. provided no tea break was taken. This resulted in
payment for 4 hours at overtime rates even though only 3.5
hours were actually worked. This arrangement still continues
and was not pushed for revision by the Company in its attempt
to reach agreement on the voucher issue. Furthermore clause
7 of the original agreement stipulated that the Company would
not make payment to any employee in lieu of luncheon
vouchers. (Details with Court). The Company did not make
any attempt, as it might have done, to utilise this clause in
eliminating the voucher system without compensation. Both of
these points are indication of the Company's flexibility and
reasonableness in pursuit of agreement on this issue.
4. In respect of any question of entitlement based on length
of service, the Court should be aware that of the original
employees who utilised the Company canteen and who were at
the centre of the November, 1972, agreement, only one of that
number remains. Furthermore, of the 14 Union members still
receiving luncheon vouchers only two are generally known to
go home for lunch whilst the remainder bring their own lunch
to work. The Court should therefore note that in making its
offer in July, 1986, the Company could understandably have
insisted that the generous terms offered apply to the longest
serving employee involved and that others would receive
pro-rata payments based on service.
5. The Company is of the view that it has made every effort
to facilitate agreement on compensation terms especially in
view of its willingness to set aside any considerations of
clauses 5 and 7 of the 1972 agreement and any consideration
of service related compensation to a maximum of that already
offered. Clearly the Company would be left with no option
but to review each of these points were the Court to
recommend an unconditional payment in excess of that already
offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimants should accept the Company's
proposal for a "buy-out" of the luncheon vouchers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st March, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
P.F./P.W. Deputy Chairman