Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89118 Case Number: LCR12331 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FERRERO IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Pay agreement.
Recommendation:
6. The Court accepts that the "package" which emerged from the
Conciliation Conference on the 14th December represented a fair
and reasonable approach to the matter of the shift premia issue
outstanding since 1986 and also incorporating a reasonable
approach to pay.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company
re-table its comprehensive package which the Court notes covers
the full period of the P.N.R., and that the Union members now
accept that package offer.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89118 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12331
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FERRERO IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Pay agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 27th wage round for the workers covered the period 1st
August, 1987 to 31st July, 1988. A local level meeting was held
in August, 1988 at which the parties discussed the next wage
round. In this context the Union also sought an increase in the
premium for two cycle shift from 1/6 to 1/5 and stated that under
the 26th wage round it was agreed that discussions would take
place on such an improvement. A number of proposals were put
forward by both parties but no agreement could be reached and on
6th October, 1988 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 14th December, 1988 resulting in settlement proposals as
follows:-
- monetary terms of Programme for National Recovery to
apply on 1st August, 1988 and 1st August, 1989 and a
further phase of 3.50% to apply on 1st August, 1990 up
to 31st July, 1991.
- two shift premium to increase to 17.67% on 1st
August, 1988; 18.67% on 1st August, 1989; and
19.67% on 1st August, 1990.
(The full text of these proposals is set out in Appendix A).
3. The Union subsequently rejected these proposals and on 16th
February, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 8th March, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. In 1986 under the terms of the 26th wage round it was
agreed that a "no further cost increasing claims clause is
excluded, thus facilitating discussions on the improvement of
1/6 shift premium to 1/5 premium during 1987." Given the
length of time which has elapsed since the commitment was
given in 1986 to increase the shift premium, the Union's
original proposal of an increase in pay of 4% from 1st August,
1988 and 3.50% from 1st August, 1989 and the adjustment of the
shift premium from 1/6 to 1/5 from 1st August, 1989 should be
implemented.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. As the Company operates in a price sensitive environment
in Europe it was considered that an agreement covering the
period to August, 1991 could be useful for planning, cost and
marketing strategy. It has been argued for sometime that the
shift premium needed improvement. The Company did not commit
itself in 1986 to improving the shift premium. While the
Company acknowledged that there was some scope for improvement
it indicated that this could only be done in the context of a
'package deal' covering the period to 31st July, 1991. As the
'package deal' was rejected by the Union the Company position
now is that it cannot reinstate such a framework agreement on
a higher cost basis and the proposal is no longer available.
2. The Company must be in a position to react to both the
economic and commercial circumstances in which it operates and
therefore while it was prepared to consider planning
developments with the costs contained in the 'package deal'
proposals it could not entertain any increase in such costs.
The Company can now only commit itself to implementing the pay
terms of the National Plan for the period 1st August, 1988 to
31st July, 1989. Any review of items such as shift, pay or
working hours will have to be based on the Company's
perspective of its future competitive position at 31st July,
1989.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court accepts that the "package" which emerged from the
Conciliation Conference on the 14th December represented a fair
and reasonable approach to the matter of the shift premia issue
outstanding since 1986 and also incorporating a reasonable
approach to pay.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company
re-table its comprehensive package which the Court notes covers
the full period of the P.N.R., and that the Union members now
accept that package offer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___31st___March,___1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX A
SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS
EMERGING FROM CONCILIATION
CONFERENCE OF 14TH DECEMBER, 1988.
(1) Basic Pay
The monetary terms of the Programme for National Recovery
will apply on 1st August, 1988 and 1st August, 1989, i.e.
3% on the first #120,
2% on the balance,
subject to a minimum of #4 per week.
A further phase of 3.50% will apply on 1st August, 1990 up to
31st July, 1991. Should a National Agreement succeed the
Programme for National Recovery with basic pay terms in
excess of 3.50% such an increase will apply.
(2) 2-Shift Premium which is presently one-sixth will increase
as follows:-
1st August, 1988 17.67%,
1st August, 1989 18.67%,
1st August, 1990 19.67%.