Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88701 Case Number: LCR12132 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ILP PACKAGING LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of fifteen general operatives for an increase in pay and an improvement in conditions.
Recommendation:
5. There was a conflict of evidence between the parties at the
Court hearings as to what transpired at the meeting of 11th
December, 1987 as regards the developments on pay which were to
follow expiry of the then existing wage agreement. Under the
terms of the Programme for National Recovery the Agreement on Pay
has effect from the expiry dates of current employer-union
agreements except where otherwise agreed at local level. In this
case the Court is not satisfied that an agreement was reached
between the parties to the effect that the National Agreement
would not be implemented on the 1st July, 1988.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the National Agreement
should take effect as from 1st July, 1988, in the Company. Having
regard to the provisions governing cost increasing claims in that
Agreement, the Court does not recommend concession of the other
claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88701 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12132
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ILP PACKAGING LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of fifteen general operatives for an increase
in pay and an improvement in conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The current rates of pay are #118.52 per week (Eight Grade 3
workers) and #101.59 (Seven Grade 2 workers). In December, 1987,
the Union reached agreement with the Company regarding negotiating
rights on behalf of these workers. Earlier in 1987 the Company
and the Employees' Works Committee had agreed an increase of 12.5%
between 1st July, 1987 and 30th June, 1988. At a meeting held on
11th December, 1987, the Union sought an increase in pay and
improved conditions of employment. The Company states that it
made no offer and its position was that there was an agreement
already in place until 30th June, 1988. The Union states that the
Company gave the Union to understand that "a favourable
replacement agreement" would be negotiated between April and June,
1988 for implementation in July, 1988. The Company completely
rejects this contention. A further meeting took place in July,
1988. The Company offered the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery from 1st July, 1988 for a period of twelve months. This
was not accepted by the Union. The matter was referred, on 14th
July, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court and a
conciliation conference was held on 7th September, 1988. No
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to a full
hearing of the Labour Court. A Court hearing took place on 7th
October, 1988. At this hearing there was a conflict of evidence
in relation to the meeting of 11th December, 1988, as set out
above. The hearing was adjourned to allow a second trade union
official to attend who had been present at the meeting on 11th
December. The hearing resumed on 28th October, 1988, with this
Trade Union official present. The conflict of evidence was not,
however, resolved.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is not contending that the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery should not apply. It is
saying, however, that at the meeting on 11th December, 1987,
the Company undertook to negotiate "a favourable replacement
agreement" to become effective in July, 1988. The workers
accepted this position but the Company is now denying that it
gave any such undertaking. The Programme for National
Recovery makes provision for agreement on an alternative
application date. It states in Clause 5:-
"Except where otherwise agreed at local level,
these arrangements shall apply from the expiry
dates of the current employer-union
agreements".
2. The Union considers that the current rates of pay are
out of line with what it considers to be reasonable rates.
The Union cited rates in other comparable Companies to support
this contention. There is no automatic progression up the pay
scale.
3. The present annual leave entitlement commences at 18
days. The Union is seeking an increase in this entitlement
which it considers to be seriously out of line with other
employments (examples cited).
4. In order to secure an increase in wages in 1987, the
staff had to agree to give up the existing Sick Pay Scheme
which provided for payment of wages in full when out sick.
The Union is seeking to have negotiations on the introduction
of a Sick Pay Scheme.
5. The Union is seeking payment of a differential to one
storesperson (Grade 2) who undertakes forklift driving duties
as an integral part of his job. Such a differential is normal
in other employments (details supplied) and this claim is
quantified as an amount of #9.67.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company strongly denies that it gave any
undertaking, commitment or understanding that it would
negotiate "a favourable replacement Agreement", to become
effective in July, 1988, as the Union contends.
2. The Company, at local level and at conciliation offered
to implement the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
from 1st July, 1988 for a twelve month period. This was
despite the fact that the Company has been in a loss making
position for two years and is targeting a break even situation
only for the year ended 30th June, 1989.
4. 3. The Company's business is a labour intensive, low margin
one and this is reflected in its pay rates. Comparisons with
higher rates in other industries are not valid.
4. The other claims are precluded by Clause 4 of the
Programme for National Recovery. Annual leave entitlement
commences at 18 days. It rises to 19 after one year's service
and 20 after five years. The working week is 37.50 hours. The
Company considers these entitlements to be fair and
reasonable.
5. The Company could not afford a sick pay scheme,
particularly with absenteeism running at 11%.
6. Payment of a fork lift differential would seriously
disrupt the existing flexibility in work practices and give
rise to demarcations which do not exist. The basic rate of
pay is inclusive of any requirement to operate a fork lift.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. There was a conflict of evidence between the parties at the
Court hearings as to what transpired at the meeting of 11th
December, 1987 as regards the developments on pay which were to
follow expiry of the then existing wage agreement. Under the
terms of the Programme for National Recovery the Agreement on Pay
has effect from the expiry dates of current employer-union
agreements except where otherwise agreed at local level. In this
case the Court is not satisfied that an agreement was reached
between the parties to the effect that the National Agreement
would not be implemented on the 1st July, 1988.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the National Agreement
should take effect as from 1st July, 1988, in the Company. Having
regard to the provisions governing cost increasing claims in that
Agreement, the Court does not recommend concession of the other
claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
23rd November, 1988 -------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman