Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89207 Case Number: LCR12349 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BISSELL (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for a wage increase on behalf of approximately 170 workers.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends that in the context of the understanding between the
Company and the Unions on productivity discussions, the Company
should renew its offer on wages as specified in their letter of
17th February, 1989, and this renewed offer should be accepted by
the workers concerned.
The Court further recommends that the above recommendation be put
to an aggregate meeting of the workers concerned and balloted on
in the Company's premises to ensure a fuller response to the terms
on offer.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89207 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12349
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BISSELL (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a wage increase on behalf of approximately 170
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. During wage negotiations which commenced in October, 1988 the
Company offered to implement the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.). The Unions sought an additional
increase in line with the practice which obtained during the
period of national wage agreements, when the Company paid an
additional 5% in return for increased targets. The Company
rejected the claim and as local discussions failed to resolve the
issue the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on the 1st December, 1988. A conciliation conference
was held on the 13th December, 1988 but no agreement was reached.
Subsequently at local discussions the Company made a further offer
(confirmed by letter dated the 17th February, 1989) which included
a 1.2% increase in excess of the terms of the P.N.R. This offer
was rejected by the Unions and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 30th
March, 1989. A Court hearing was held on the 31st March, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have a particular case based on the
productivity structure of the Company for an increase above
the terms of the P.N.R. All employees are working to targets
and are therefore entitled to some incentive payment above the
basic rates. The Company/Union Agreement concedes that the
Company operate a nominal bonus scheme which in other
employments would yield a bonus of between 25% and 33% of
basic pay. In 1979 the Company and the Unions agreed to pay
an extra 5% increase in the basic wage in return for a 5%
increase in targets in the factory. This would now suggest
that the Company are operating at a level of 106% at standard
performance (inclusive of a further increase in targets by 1%
in 1985).
2. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union
of Employers have now agreed in principle to the introduction
of the thirty nine hour week as per section 2 of the P.N.R.
The Unions now request that the Company should implement the
shorter working week without delay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's position is that it is not prepared to step
outside the terms of the P.N.R. However the Company was
prepared to offer an additional 1% on basic rates as a lead-in
to, but separate from, the implementation of the P.N.R. This
offer was balloted and rejected at a meeting attended by 30%
of the Unions membership. At the conciliation conference in
December, 1988 the Company made it clear that it could not
improve its offer and pointed out that it had already provided
for a 3.7% (approximate) rise during the first year of the
P.N.R. This compared very favourably with local and national
settlements.
2. The Unions' representatives focused attention on
productivity in the Company rather than on the terms of the
wage offer. They claimed in relation to past productivity,
that an agreement in 1979 providing for a 5% increase in basic
rates in return for a corresponding improvement in
productivity, should only have applied to work carried out at
that time. In essence the argument was that the improvement
in productivity should not relate to the normal changes in
operations even though the 5% increase continues to be paid.
The Company is surprised that this matter should be raised
nine years later and feels that it is an attempt to divert
attention away from the P.N.R. In fact, the 5% increase was
paid to all hourly paid employees despite the fact that 60% of
them were excluded from any productivity increases. It is
worth noting that some of the changes or new products which
the Unions feel should be excluded, are not different from
products in 1979, other than in their colour.
3. The Unions argued that wage rates in the Company do not
compare with other employments locally. The Company feels
that the Unions basis for comparison has no validity. The
Company's operation is totally different from companies which
they cited, and it believes that the issue should be dealt
with on the basis of what the Company can afford. The Unions
have also claimed that an agreement on future productivity
arrangements would have to be self financing. The principle
of this approach was agreed to, and the Company prepared a
comprehensive package of proposals together with a schedule of
anticipated savings which they would give rise to, and which
could be shared between the parties. At a meeting in
February, 1989, the Company outlined to the Unions what it saw
as the terms of reference and operational details on a
possible productivity proposal, and made it clear that
agreement on the wage offer would be necessary before any
discussions could begin. The Unions agreed that
implementation of any productivity proposals would take time
and that agreement on the wage offer would be necessary
beforehand. They requested the Company to withdraw the offer
of the one month lead-in payment and pay 4% for the first year
of the three year agreement (P.N.R.). The Company agreed to
do so after receiving assurances that it was the basis for
settlement. Despite meeting the Unions' demands both on pay
and productivity, the offer was rejected at a meeting attended
by less than 40% of the Unions' members.
4. The Company feels that its wage offer is realistic and
compares very favourably with pay increases in other
employments. It is concerned that having met the Unions'
demands no agreement has been forthcoming and feels that there
is a total lack of realism among the workers concerned. The
Company claims that the workers have chosen to ignore the
terms of an agreement to which their Unions have been
signatories. The Company is committed to all aspects of the
P.N.R. and feels that its workers should recognise that the
combination of tax change, low inflation and the three year
pay agreement yields a significant increase in real terms.
The Company is concerned at the lack of interest shown by the
workers in attending union meetings as there is a danger that
the outcome of such meetings is unrepresentative of the
feelings of its workforce. The Company would insist that
future meetings on this and other issues be held on the
Company premises during working hours to ensure a full
turnout.
5. The Companys offer confirmed in it's letter of 17th
February, 1989 was made on the strict understanding that it
was the basis for a settlement. As this is not the case, the
Company has withdrawn that offer and is insisting on strict
implementation of the P.N.R. The Company feels further that
there is no purpose to be served in entering into productivity
discussions with Union representatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends that in the context of the understanding between the
Company and the Unions on productivity discussions, the Company
should renew its offer on wages as specified in their letter of
17th February, 1989, and this renewed offer should be accepted by
the workers concerned.
The Court further recommends that the above recommendation be put
to an aggregate meeting of the workers concerned and balloted on
in the Company's premises to ensure a fuller response to the terms
on offer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
17th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.