Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88528 Case Number: LCR12018 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NEW LIMERICK GAS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND PLUMBING UNION |
Claim on behalf of approximately twenty workers for parity of wage rates and conditions with workers in other gas utilities.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to the financial projections for this
Company, does not consider that a claim for parity of basic wage
rates can be sustained and does not, therefore, recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88528 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12018
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NEW LIMERICK GAS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND PLUMBING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately twenty workers for parity of
wage rates and conditions with workers in other gas utilities.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to 1987 gas distribution in Limerick was carried out by
Limerick Corporation and the workers were paid in accordance with
local authority wage rates and conditions. New Limerick Gas was
incorporated in 1987 to take over the operation of the gas
utility. The formal agreement between the Company and the
Corporation for the transfer of assets and staff provided that
staff would be employed by the new Company on terms no less
favourable than those enjoyed by them prior to transfer. During
negotiations on the transfer the Company gave a commitment to
undertake a review of the current wage rates on 1st December,
1987. This review was carried out and the Unions were advised
that no adjustment could be made to the wage rates at that time.
Since then there have been a number of meetings where the Unions
sought improvements in wages and conditions of employment by
reference to the rates in other utilities and in particular Cork
and Dublin Gas Companies. As no agreement could be reached the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No basis for a settlement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 30th June, 1988 and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court investigation into the dispute was held in Limerick on
24th August, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has imposed new work practices on the
workers on the basis that they are already in operation in
Dublin and Cork. The workers have fully co-operated with the
Company on their introduction to the extent that they are now
more flexible in terms of work performance than their
colleagues in Dublin and Cork. The workers are, therefore,
extremely disappointed by the Company's attitude on this
issue.
3. 2. Comparable rates apply nationwide in the public sector
and semi-state bodies and national rates apply in many
groupings such as the building industry. Yet the Company is
not prepared to apply the wage rates that apply in Dublin and
Cork Gas companies.
3. The Company made the Unions aware of its Capital
Expenditure Programme and the prediction that it would be in a
non-profit making situation for at least 2 years. Despite
this, the Company still gave a commitment to a review of wage
rates. The Unions believe that the Company is in a good
position. The long-standing customers of the old company have
been retained while new customers have been acquired, all of
which is a healthy sign for the future.
4. The workers are still being paid under the 25th wage
round while workers in both Dublin and Cork are going on to
their 27th wage round. This position is no longer acceptable
as the division is becoming greater each time a percentage
increase is applied.
5. The Company is a subsidiary of Bord Gais Eireann and as
such cannot plead inability to pay at this stage. No body
else is awaiting the outcome of this case and therefore no
precedent would be set if the workers were awarded the parity
sought and, indeed, promised.
6. The Company enjoys the best of industrial relations and
it is the Unions' earnest wish that this will continue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Although the Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Bord Gais Eireann it operates as a completely separate and
independent commercial legal entity and cost centre and to
justify its continuance must endeavour to trade profitably and
competitively in relation to both service and cost in the
energy market. The changed status of the Company has
highlighted the commercial realities it has to face. It would
be most irresponsible of the Company to contemplate or
countenance in any way a claim for parity of wages and
conditions simply because of a common shareholder. Many other
holding companies operate on this basis. The Labour Court has
already endorsed this approach (LCR11471 refers).
2. The Company has an accumulated loss as of 31st December,
1987 of £4.6m. Projections indicate that the Company will
trade at a loss for a considerable period of time (details
supplied to the Court). In view of this, the fact that the
Company has been able to maintain current pay and employment
levels is in itself a major achievement.
4. 3. The wage rates currently applying in the Company compare
favourably with those applying in other local employments.
However, because the first phase of the pay terms of the
Programme for National Recovery (PNR) has not been applied the
traditional relativity with Limerick Corporation has been
eroded. The Company cannot and should not have to contemplate
increases which it cannot afford to pay. The PNR recognises
"inability to pay" and also excludes "further cost increasing"
claims.
4. Concession of this claim would have repercussive effects
both within the Company and throughout the gas industry.
Other local employments could also be affected.
5. The workers received a lump sum payment when they
transferred to the new company.
6. Approximately 90% of the customer base is made up of low
consumption customers. There is considerable investment
required to change this.
7. The Company is prepared to look at wages and conditions
at a future date depending on the financial situation. If the
situation improves then the Company would consider changes in
rates or conditions. However, because of the need for
flexibility the Company will not consider a parity claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to the financial projections for this
Company, does not consider that a claim for parity of basic wage
rates can be sustained and does not, therefore, recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th September, 1988 ----------------
R.B/U.S. Chairman