Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88917 Case Number: LCR12220 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROMA FOODS LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claims by the Union under the 28th wage round for:- (a) Substantial increase in pay. (b) Introduction of a bonus scheme. (c) Introduction of pension scheme.
Recommendation:
13. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends as follows:
Increase in Rates
The Court recommends that the Company's offer which is in accord
with the Programme for National Recovery be accepted.
Introduction of Bonus
In the absence of the agreement between the parties that a bonus
scheme would be mutually beneficial the Court does not recommend
concession of this claim.
Pension Scheme
Having regard to previous general agreements between unions and
employers the Court recommends that negotiations commence directly
in respect of the introduction of a suitable pension scheme for
the employees concerned, contributions in respect of which need
not begin until the termination of the P.N.R., subject to special
provisions being made for any worker who may qualify for a pension
under the scheme prior to the termination of the National
Programme.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88917 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12220
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROMA FOODS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union under the 28th wage round for:-
(a) Substantial increase in pay.
(b) Introduction of a bonus scheme.
(c) Introduction of pension scheme.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The 27th wage round expired in the Company on 30th May, 1988.
The Union, on behalf of the workers, served the above mentioned
claims on the Company. In response to the claims, the Company
offered the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
This was not acceptable to the Union, and on 23rd September, 1988,
the matters were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 4th
November, 1988. No agreement was reached, and on 30th November,
1988, the matters were referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 19th December, 1988.
CLAIM A: Substantial increase in pay.
BACKGROUND:
3. The basic rate of pay in the Company is approximately #135 per
week. The Union claims that this is too low, and compares
unfavourably with similar employers elsewhere. The Union is
seeking a substantial wage increase. The Company rejected any
question of an increase above that agreed at central level and is
only prepared to offer the terms of the P.N.R.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The basic rate of pay in the Company is very low. There
are numerous employees in similar types of employment whose
rates are in excess of those paid by the Company. (Details
supplied to the Court).
2. The Company has benefited greatly over the past number of
years from the co-operation, flexibility and productivity
which has been readily given by the workers concerned. The
Company is very respectable in terms of its products, and its
business has been increasing steadily. The employees deserve
to be rewarded for their contribution.
3. Take home pay for the majority of workers in the Company
is under #100 per week. The hours are mainly 8.00 a.m. to
5.00 p.m., and the opportunities for enhanced earnings are
very limited. Overtime is very occasional and irregular.
4. The workforce is now 50% smaller than it was in 1982,
while the throughput in the factory has drastically increased.
Given this large level of productivity, the claim for a
substantial pay increase is more than justified. The Union
asks the Court to recommend in its favour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The P.N.R. was negotiated at central level by ICTU on
behalf of its members and the FUE on behalf of employers.
This agreement was fully ratified in November, 1987 by all
parties and has been implemented throughout the country in
every area of the private sector. In view of the Union's
strong support for this agreement and its own affiliation as a
Congress union the Union membership has no right to attempt to
renegotiate that agreement at local level.
2. The Court itself has declared its support for the full
terms of the National Plan and the Company is seeking that
support for the P.N.R. is given fully in the recommendation
following this hearing. The Court is asked to strongly
recommend in the Company's favour.
CLAIM B: Introduction of a bonus scheme.
BACKGROUND:
6. The Union has been seeking the introduction of a bonus scheme
for the past number of years. The Union claims that this is an
integral part of the business the Company is engaged in, and that
the introduction of such a scheme would offer increased
productivity to the Company as well as enhanced earning
opportunities to the employees. The Company rejected the claim on
the grounds that it would be cost increasing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Bonus schemes are a normal feature of the kind of
warehouse distribution activity that the Company is engaged
in. They are normally based on tonnage handled, are easily
operated, and require no great expertise to introduce.
2. There are numerous examples of companies which could serve
as a model for the kind of scheme which the Union wants
introduced. (Details supplied to the Court). The Company has
so far refused even to discuss the introduction of such a
scheme. The Company is already getting considerable
productivity and increased working from its employees without
paying for it, and should face up to its responsibilities in
this regard. The Union asks the Court to so recommend.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
8. 1. The Company rejects the claim as being cost increasing and
precluded under the terms of the P.N.R.
CLAIM C: Introduction of a pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
9. The Union, on behalf of the workers, has sought the
introduction of a pension scheme in the Company, which would be
funded by both the Company and the Union. The Company has
indicated its willingness to research various pension options, and
to provide the information to the Union. This is not acceptable
to the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company initially indicated that it would investigate
the feasibility of a pension scheme, but at a later stage
amended its position to say that it had given no such
commitment, but had merely indicated that it would be
prepared to seek out and provide information on pension
schemes. This is totally unacceptable to the Union, what is
being sought is a pension scheme which is negotiated between
the two parties and is funded by the Company and the
employees.
2. It is entirely reasonable, and a commonplace in all types
of employment that employees enjoy the benefits of a pension
scheme. If the Company expects a commitment from its
employees towards the success of the Company, then equally
the employees have the right to have a commitment from the
Company reflected in the provision of a pension scheme to
look after their well being in retirement.
3. The Union asks the Court to find in line with normal
practice, and to recommend that the Company negotiate with
the Union for the provision of an acceptable pension scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
11. 1. The Company rejects the claim as being cost increasing
and precluded under the terms of the P.N.R.
UNION'S GENERAL ARGUMENT:
12. The Union is aware that the Company will plead that in
offering the terms of the Programme for National Recovery it is
fulfilling its obligations. In our view, this does not cover a
situation where productivity has been given over a period of
years, flexibility has been freely given by the workforce,
de-manning has taken place, while at the same time the volume of
work has increased. This in itself is an obvious productivity
measure.
RECOMMENDATION:
13. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends as follows:
Increase in Rates
The Court recommends that the Company's offer which is in accord
with the Programme for National Recovery be accepted.
Introduction of Bonus
In the absence of the agreement between the parties that a bonus
scheme would be mutually beneficial the Court does not recommend
concession of this claim.
Pension Scheme
Having regard to previous general agreements between unions and
employers the Court recommends that negotiations commence directly
in respect of the introduction of a suitable pension scheme for
the employees concerned, contributions in respect of which need
not begin until the termination of the P.N.R., subject to special
provisions being made for any worker who may qualify for a pension
under the scheme prior to the termination of the National
Programme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___________________
20th January, 1989.
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.