Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88901 Case Number: LCR12221 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TOYOTA (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 25 workers for a wage increase.
Recommendation:
5. Under the terms of the P.N.R. cost increasing claims are
precluded, the Court does not therefore recommend concession of
the Unions claim.
However, the Court is satisfied that the application of a system
of merit payments to a number of employees was never discussed
either with the claimant's Union or generally. The Court is of
the view that to allow a situation to develop in which employees
feel that negotiations are not being carried out on an above board
basis can be detrimental to industrial relations in the firm in
the long term, and suggests that the system used by the Company
for the determination of eligibility on an individual basis be
made known.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88901 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12221
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TOYOTA (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 25 workers for a wage
increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. In January, 1988, the Company offered and the Union accepted a
wage increase in line with the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.). Subsequently, in April, 1988, the Union
learned that other non-union workers had received increases in
excess of the P.N.R. The Union maintains that the Company had
previously given a commitment that all employees would be treated
equally and the Union wanted this commitment to be put into
effect. The Company rejected the Union's claim arguing that
non-union staff received the terms of the P.N.R. but also received
a 'merit increase' in line with previous practice. No local
agreement could be reached and on 21st June, 1988, the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Agreement was not achieved at a conciliation conference held on
29th August, 1988, and the matter was referred on 23rd November,
1988, to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 15th December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepted the terms of the P.N.R. on the strict
understanding that all groups of workers would be treated
equally in relation to the wage round as has been the case in
the past.
2. In relation to the Company's argument that the extra
wage increase is a merit award the Union cannot accept that
non-union workers should be the only workers in the Company to
benefit. The Company has paid this extra increase to
non-Union staff in the clerical area where Union and non-union
staff work together. The Union regards this as victimisation
and discrimination against the unionised workers.
3. 3. The unionised workers put as much effort into the job as
the so called 'merited employees' and deserve to be treated
equally. The Union has never been aware of any merit payment
system operated by the Company in the past and believes that
the Company should honour its stated policy of treating all
groups equally for wage increases. The Union believes its
position is justified and that the 25 workers concerned should
receive the 2% to 4% extra payment paid to non-union workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms of the P.N.R. was accepted by the Union and
was applied equally to all staff, whether unionised or not, on
basic pay. The Union is deliberately attempting to confuse
the issue by referring to the long established practice of
merit payment to non-union staff.
2. It was the unionised workers who decided to break away
from the Company's practice of pay review and merit support.
In doing so they have, in the past, negotiated pay increases
including productivity payments without reference to non-union
workers. They have never sought or supported the Company's
approach to pay review.
3. The Company believes that its decision to continue merit
payment is correct, just as it is appropriate to continue
incremental pay increases in addition to the P.N.R.
4. The claim is an undisguised attempt to break a freely
entered into agreement, Clause 4 of which states:
"It is agreed that no further cost increasing
claims will be made on employers".
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Under the terms of the P.N.R. cost increasing claims are
precluded, the Court does not therefore recommend concession of
the Unions claim.
However, the Court is satisfied that the application of a system
of merit payments to a number of employees was never discussed
either with the claimant's Union or generally. The Court is of
the view that to allow a situation to develop in which employees
feel that negotiations are not being carried out on an above board
basis can be detrimental to industrial relations in the firm in
the long term, and suggests that the system used by the Company
for the determination of eligibility on an individual basis be
made known.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
17th January, 1989 ---------------
B.O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman