Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88920 Case Number: LCR12252 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MEDITE OF EUROPE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims under the 27th wage round, on behalf of approximately 100 workers for a substantial increase in wages, introduction of service pay, increase in annual leave, upgrading of certain workers and an increase in the fire brigade allowance.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the circumstances of this case, the Court
finds that the Company's offer to implement the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery from the appropriate date is fair
and reasonable and recommends it for acceptance.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88920 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12252
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MEDITE OF EUROPE LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims under the 27th wage round, on behalf of approximately
100 workers for a substantial increase in wages, introduction of
service pay, increase in annual leave, upgrading of certain
workers and an increase in the fire brigade allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is located in Clonmel is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Medite Corporation, U.S.A., and specialises in
the manufacture of medium density fibreboard which is a premium
wood panel product used in the manufacture of quality furniture
and cabinetary. The product is marketed in Ireland, the U.K. and
throughout Europe. The Company employs a total of 178 people.
3. The 26th wage round expired on 30th April, 1988. Initially
the Company sought a meeting with the Union and the unions
representing the craftworkers (the craftworkers 26th wage round
expired on 31st March, 1988) to discuss jointly the forthcoming
pay round. A meeting was held on the 19th May, 1988. At this
meeting the respective unions indicated that they had additional
items which they wished to discuss. The meeting was adjourned to
allow the parties to consider their positions. It was
subsequently decided to have separate discussions on the matter
and the Company and Union met on 15th June, 1988. At this meeting
the Union lodged its claim as outlined at 1 above. The Company
rejected the claim and offered the monetary terms of the Programme
for National Recovery (P.N.R.), the first phase to be of eleven
months duration so as to align both pay agreements.
4. The Company's offer, with a recommendation of acceptance by
the Union representatives, was balloted upon by the workforce.
The offer was rejected and the Company withdrew its offer. The
matter was then referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 11th October, 1988. A conciliation conference was held
on 11th November, 1988. As no agreement was possible both parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on 25th
January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In the light of the short number of years that the Company
has been in existence and particularly the size of its
operation, the Union feels that the Company should take such
circumstances into consideration and sit down and negotiate on
the additional items i.e. service pay, additional annual
leave, up-grading and an increase in the fire brigade
allowance.
2. To freeze the position for three years on these four items
would be unfair to the Union members as most of them are now
employed over 5 years and would in similar circumstances be
negotiating the introduction of service pay and additional
leave based on over 5 years' service.
3. On the upgrading issue there is also an urgency because
experience has shown that the initial grading was subject to
review based on the work experience which was unknown when the
grades were initially introduced at start-up.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers concerned enjoy a total package of
remuneration and conditions highly competitive with those in
industry as a whole (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company is committed to the terms of the P.N.R. and is
satisfied that it has been reasonable in its discussions with
the Union on this matter.