Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88923 Case Number: LCR12274 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WAVIN PIPES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims concerning (a) introduction of an incentive bonus scheme; and (b) rate of pay for temporary employees.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) Incentive Bonus Payment:
9. The Court does not consider that the current circumstances
warrant the payment of a Bonus.
Claim (b) Pay Rates for Temporary Workers:
The Court does not consider that there should be a lower rate for
temporary workers on export orders except with the specific
agreement of the union in each case. However, it is reasonable
for the Company to pay a lower rate for work which is confined
solely to assembly and packaging and the Court considers that the
present rate is a fair reward for that work and does not therefore
recommend concession of the claims.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88923 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12274
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WAVIN PIPES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims concerning
(a) introduction of an incentive bonus scheme; and
(b) rate of pay for temporary employees.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking the payment of the full rate of pay to
those temporary employees employed on other work and also the
introduction of an incentive bonus scheme as recommended by the
Labour Court in LCR9618. The Company rejected both these claims
and, as no agreement could be reached at local level the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
settlement was reached at conciliation conferences held on 14th
October and 3rd November, 1988 and the matters were referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held on 21st December, 1988.
Claim (a) - introduction of incentive bonus scheme:
BACKGROUND:
3. In 1984 the Labour Court investigated a claim for a
productivity payment and other matters arising from a capital
investment programme and, in LCR9618 recommended, inter alia, that
"both parties negotiate some element of benefit to the workforce
in the future in the context of the statement from the Company
that it 'will continue to make improvements in keeping with what
is prudent'". This recommendation was accepted by both parties.
The Union has now re-submitted its claim for the introduction of a
bonus scheme on the basis of the workers' contribution to the
Company's improved position.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1984 the Company has implemented a considerable
number of redundancies, has introduced new technology and has
implemented changes in shift working and other work practices.
The workers have co-operated with the rationalisation and
re-organisation of the Company. The investment policy and
rationalisation have now borne fruit and the Company is now
trading profitably. It is also well poised to capitalise on
the expected improvement in the economy and to increase its
market share. In recognition of the workers' clear and
demonstrable contribution to the attainment of the Company's
present position. The Union considers that in keeping with
LCR9618 it is now prudent for the Company to introduce a bonus
scheme which gives a tangible recognition to the workers'
contribution.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. As a result of a shrinking market and intense
competition over the past few years the Company has sustained
considerable losses (details supplied to the Court) and has
reduced its workforce in line with reducing sales volumes at a
cost of over #1.2m. Despite market problems the Company has
invested heavily in equipment and plant to improve its long
term competitiveness. It is premature to expect an additional
increase in conditions on the basis of one year's performance,
particularly when there is no guarantee that that performance
will be repeated. As a responsible employer, the Company sees
an overriding need to ensure strict competitiveness before
increasing its cost base further and thus jeopardise future
recovery.
2. The previous incentive bonus scheme was incorporated
into the basic rate of pay as recently as 1984. This was one
of the express wishes of the workforce who claimed the bonus
payment was a divisive element in the Company. The Company
has, operated a policy of ensuring pay and conditions of a
high standard. If a bonus scheme was to be re-introduced
after four years its cost must come out of the costs of some
other benefits and conditions.
Claim (b) - Rate of pay for temporary employees:
BACKGROUND:
6. In 1987, as a result of obtaining an export order the Company
employed a number of temporary workers for assembly and
packaging work. The rate of pay for these workers was agreed
with the Union at #140 per week, which was lower than the
minimum basic rate in the Company. In June, 1988, the Company
obtained a further export order and again sought to employ
temporary workers. The Union objected to their employment on
the grounds that the Company was seeking a degree of
flexibility between work on the home product and the export
order while paying the lower rate of pay. At local
discussions agreement was reached on the rate for work on the
export order only (i.e. #144 per week). The question of the
flexibility of these workers and the appropriate rate of pay
for such flexibility was referred to the Labour Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The 1987 export order came at a time when the Company
had just experienced a large redundancy situation. The Union
agreed to the employment of temporary workers on the strict
understanding that they would be employed solely on the export
order. On completion of the order the Company sought the
Union's agreement to have the workers work on normal
production at the same rate of pay. The Union rejected this
and the temporary workers were laid off. Subsequently the
permanent workers in the Company went on short time.
2. In 1988 the Company again sought a degree of flexibility
for temporary workers at the lower rate of pay (#144 as
against a normal basic of #184.05). This was seen by the
workforce as the Company bringing in temporary workers by the
back door to work on the home product and was rejected. The
Union would be prepared to accept a rate of #175 per week for
all temporaries who would then be as flexible as the Company
requires and their skills allow.
3. In accepting the employment of temporary workers, the
Company has been conceded a major benefit. It can now employ
a flexible labour force to cater for seasonal demands.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company pays its standard rate of pay to general
workers for full flexibility over a wide range of skills
(details supplied to the Court). It would be completely
uneconomical to pay this rate for the narrow range of
unskilled work i.e. assembly and packaging which is required
of the temporary employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) Incentive Bonus Payment:
9. The Court does not consider that the current circumstances
warrant the payment of a Bonus.
Claim (b) Pay Rates for Temporary Workers:
The Court does not consider that there should be a lower rate for
temporary workers on export orders except with the specific
agreement of the union in each case. However, it is reasonable
for the Company to pay a lower rate for work which is confined
solely to assembly and packaging and the Court considers that the
present rate is a fair reward for that work and does not therefore
recommend concession of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
------------------
13th February, 1989
U.M./U.S. Chairman