Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88203 Case Number: LCR11841 Section / Act: S67 Parties: W & C MCDONNELL LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of fifteen workers, for a wage increase under the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, in recognition of the different levels of
productivity being conceded by the various groups, recommends that
the clerical scales be increased by five per cent for eight months
and one per cent for four months.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88203 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11841
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: W & C MCDONNELL LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of fifteen workers, for a wage increase under
the 26th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 146 workers in the
manufacture of food products at its plant and refinery in
Drogheda. The 25th wage round expired for the clerical workers on
31st May, 1987 and the Union, on their behalf, served a claim on
the Company for a 26th wage round increase of 10% for 12 months.
The Company responded with an offer of 4% for 12 months. This was
not acceptable to the Union and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences were held on 13th October, 27th October and 9th
December, 1987 and on 1st March, 1988 at which the Union indicated
that it would be prepared to accept 6.4% for 12 months as was
agreed with the craft group (the general workers agreed a 7%
increase over 13 months). The Company increased its offer to 5%
for 12 months but was not prepared to concede the same level of
increases as those conceded to other groups because there was a
productivity element involved in those settlements and any
productivity in the clerical area had according to the Company
already been compensated for in a 1984 computerisation agreement.
The Union rejected this revised offer and, as no agreement could
be reached at conciliation the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court investigation
into the dispute was held in Drogheda on 12th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The productivity and co-operation of the clerical group
on an ongoing basis compares favourably with that of any other
group within the Company. The clerical group was reduced by
one in February, 1987. The computer deal negotiated in 1984
does not cover the present situation which, on the Company's
own admission, is only partly due to computerisation. That
agreement was entered into on the clear understanding that
"there is no loss of jobs envisaged in the Company arising
from the computerisation". Therefore, the Union believes that
the Company is obliged to include the reduction in numbers as
an element for negotiation and agreement in the current claim.
The Company's present position is completely at variance with
the arguments put forward by the Company to these workers and
the Labour in 1984 and is definitely not the basis on which
the Union entered into the computer agreement.
2. Subsequent to the reduction in numbers in the planning
department and the resultant revision in job descriptions, the
Company transferred the Brooke Bond Tea operation to Drogheda.
This has imposed a considerable strain on the clerical
resources of the department. The three clerks in that
department are being asked to perform the duties of four full
time jobs. This coupled with the extra workload incurred by
the remaining workers constitutes the workload of at least one
and a half jobs to the clerical group as a whole.
3. The introduction of the tea related work was not done
according to normal procedures of consultation and
negotiation. Despite this the Company has enjoyed the full
co-operation of all the clerical staff in this regard. The
Union considers that the Company has seriously undervalued the
clerical contribution to the ongoing success of the Company in
its day to day operations. It is certainly equal to the
contribution of any other group on site. The Union is
therefore justified in seeking a comparable agreement to the
other groups.
4. A Company document submitted to the Union at the time of
the 25th wage round agreement clearly demonstrates the
Company's position at that time to be in line with Union
understanding of the 1984 computer agreement. The Company's
change in position regarding this agreement irrevocably
damages the Union's right to negotiate any meaningful
productivity agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The improvements required and given by the general and
craft workers have placed a greater demand on those groups
than has been placed on the clerical group and those groups
are aware of this. The Company's offer is in line with other
settlements generally.
2. The changes in the clerical section either were not of a
work increasing nature, had already been compensated for or
would have happened in any event.
4. 3. It has been the practice over the years that the
different groups have negotiated separately on the basis of
their own productivity claims. At no stage has the Company or
unions sought to negotiate collectively. Different
settlements have been made in the past according to the
circumstance applying at the time. Only one agreement has
been the same since 1980. In this regard the clerical section
has benefited to a greater extent than the other groups and
the salary scales and benefits reflect this fact (details
supplied to the Court).
4. The offer of 5% for 12 months fairly covers elements of
cost of living and areas of productivity claimed by the Union.
In money terms this offer exceeds the factory settlements.
The clerical section in Harcourt Street, which negotiates
separately through the same union and official, has accepted a
4% increase. They are also involved in the Brooke Bond
business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, in recognition of the different levels of
productivity being conceded by the various groups, recommends that
the clerical scales be increased by five per cent for eight months
and one per cent for four months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
6th May, 1988 ------------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman