Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88836 Case Number: LCR12194 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LIMERICK LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for the implementation of the 1st phase of the programme for national recovery.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and in particular the financial information provided by
the Company. Whilst it is clear that the Company is facing
difficult trading conditions there is no indication that the
future development of the Company would be significantly assisted
by the workers temporarily foregoing increases due under the
Programme for National Recovery. In the circumstances the Court
recommends that the terms of the programme be paid with effect
from the date due.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88836 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LIMERICK LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the implementation of the 1st phase of
the programme for national recovery.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company concerned in this dispute are in involved in both
the dry cleaning and laundry business. There are approximately 26
people involved, for whom the last 26th wage round agreement
expired on 31st December, 1987. The Union on behalf of the
workers served a claim on the Company for the terms of the
National Plan, in respect of the 27th wage round effective from
1st January, 1988, including the minimum payment of #4 per week.
The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that it was unable
to pay because of severe financial difficulties. Agreement could
not be reached at local level, and on 20th September, 1988, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 19th October,
1988. No agreement was reached and on 2nd November, 1988, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Limerick on 23rd
November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The wage rates in this Company vary between #100 and #120
over 5 years. The Company admits that the wage rates are
extremely low, yet they refused to pay the terms of the
National Plan. Wage rates in the Company are such that were
the National Plan applied over 80% of the workers in the
Company would qualify for the #4 per week payment for low paid
workers over the 3 years of the plan.
2. The 26th wage round in the Company also had to be
adjudicated on by the Court. The Company stated in its
submission on that occasion that based on its trading position
and advice from its auditors, it could not consider any form
of increase, and that it was also seeking an ongoing pay pause
to allow the Company to continue. The Labour Court
recommended payment of the agreement (3%) and the payment of
the incremental payments. The Company, despite all it said,
paid the award and continued to trade successfully.
3. The Union acknowledges that the Company could be more
profitable. Its costs have risen through increases in rent
etc, but it has found a way to meet all these costs, and is
still trading. There is no reason why the already lowly paid
workers should become the scapegoats during the Company's
difficult period.
4. The Union sees the climate of the industry remaining the
same. If anything, new small units could be the coming
practice and if the workers receive no wage increase this
year, there would be no good reason why they should get one
next year or the year after, because circumstances are not
going to change very much. If the light, heat, rates and rent
can be paid, so should those who by their labours make it
possible for this to be done. The current agreement (National
Plan) paid in full would cost the Company less than #100 per
week to the workers.
5. The workers in the laundry participated in the Union's
ballot on the terms of the National Agreement. Many of the
members in the stronger companies such as Fulflex, Irish
Cement Ltd., Howmedica, etc., feel that they have sacrificed
the opportunity to seek higher percentage increases in the
interest of the lowly paid. Yet one of these lowly paid
groups are being denied the minimum terms of the Plan. There
is no way in which the lowly paid workers involved in this
dispute can afford to forego the minimal increase provided for
under the terms of the National Plan. The Union requests the
Court to recommend in its favour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This year, the Company has referred looses in the order of
#13,000. (Accounts provided to the Court). The volume of
business, which the Company sated to be in decline in 1987 has
contracted further, especially in the domestic laundry
markets. The price competition on the dry cleaning side of
the business has increased still further in the last year, a
factor which keeps the turnover figure down.
2. At present Limerick Laundry employs 22 full time staff,
having employed 40 in total when the Company was formed in
1982. The rates of pay in Limerick Laundry are at the upper
end of the pay rates prevailing in the laundry industry. By
industry standards Limerick Laundry is a small independent
laundry Company and it faces increased competition from
smaller newly founded (grant aided) operations.
3. In 1986 wages increased by 7.48% while turnover increased
by 1.47%, a trend that has continued. IN the year 1988 so
far, 9 members of staff covered by this claim have already
received increases ranging from 2.5% to 5.1% under the terms
of the service pay agreement operating between the Company and
the Union.
4. Limerick Laundry is clearly unable due to its commercial
circumstances to meet the terms set out in the Programme for
National Recovery on top of the service pay increments which
it has already paid in the current year. These arguments were
made at the conciliation conference held on October, 19th
last. On that occasion the Company voiced a position that
trusts will be endorsed by the Court today, for a pay pause of
a 12 month duration to prevail from 1/1/1988 - 31/12/1988. In
the light of its critical financial position, the Company
requests the Court to so recommend.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and in particular the financial information provided by
the Company. Whilst it is clear that the Company is facing
difficult trading conditions there is no indication that the
future development of the Company would be significantly assisted
by the workers temporarily foregoing increases due under the
Programme for National Recovery. In the circumstances the Court
recommends that the terms of the programme be paid with effect
from the date due.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
6th January, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.