Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88937 Case Number: LCR12236 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims by the Union for:- (a) Enhanced severance payments from the Company. (b) A 10 point salary scale for clerical workers. (c) A wage increase for two workers. (d) Compensation for loss of gas concessions.
Recommendation:
14. Having considered the submissions made by the parties on the
issues before it the Court recommends as follows:-
Redundancy Payments:
The Court does not consider that differences in basic pay warrant
any amendment to the Company's offer of the same terms as those
which applied in Dublin.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claims, either for an increase in the number of weeks per year of
service or in the retirement gratuity.
General Wage Increase:
Having regard to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
the Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
Introduction of Clerical Scale:
Having regard to the terms of the settlement negotiated in
September 1987 the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Compensation for Concessionary Gas:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer in this respect
should be accepted by these workers currently employed but would
further recommend that the Company consider doubling the offer to
pensioners who have benefited from this concession.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88937 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12236
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BORD GAIS EIREANN
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for:-
(a) Enhanced severance payments from the Company.
(b) A 10 point salary scale for clerical workers.
(c) A wage increase for two workers.
(d) Compensation for loss of gas concessions.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Union on behalf of the workers concerned served the above
mentioned claims on the Company. Agreement could not be reached
on the matters in dispute and on 9th November, 1988 the matters
were referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 2nd December, 1988. No
agreement was reached, and on 14th December, 1988 the matters were
referred to the Labour Court for investigation. A Court hearing
took place in Dublin on 16th December, 1988.
Claim A - Enhanced Severance Payments:
BACKGROUND:
3. In taking over Dublin Gas, Bord Gais Eireann acquired the old
Waterford Gas Company. A decision was taken not to convert
Waterford City to domestic use of natural gas, but to only supply
major industry. The result of this is that approximately 19
redundancies are required and this is accepted by the Union. The
Bord has offered the same severance terms as previously applied in
the Dublin Gas Company plus statutory entitlements. The Union on
behalf of the workers is claiming 10 weeks' pay per year of
service plus the terms of the Minimum Notice and Terms of
Employment Act, 1973. The Union is also seeking a minimum payment
of #12,000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have rejected the Company's proposals on the
basis that Waterford domestic gas is being forceably closed
down and the jobs are being forceably lost. The Dublin and
Cork rates of pay are in some cases twice the Waterford rate.
In the months leading up to the Dublin redundancies, which
were voluntary, the amount of overtime worked was
extraordinary and this factor has been acknowledged by the
Company at conciliation.
2. A straight application of the Dublin package ignores the
special position these workers find themselves in. It ignores
the rates which apply to the workers and comes across to the
Union as a quick and lazy answer by the Company to a complex
human problem that will shape peoples lives for years to come.
3. The Court, in dealing with the Cork Gas Company in 1985,
recognised that the Union had agreed in principle to the
re-organisation of Cork. In Waterford, the Union has also
agreed in principle with the redundancies. In LCR No. 9686
the Court recommended a minimum severance payment of #6,000,
together with six weeks' pay per year of service. Because of
the nature of the redundancies in Waterford, the Union is
claiming a minimum severance payment of #12,000 and ten weeks'
pay per year of service. Recent settlements in both the
private and public sectors is supportive of the Union's claim.
(Details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Because of the close relationship between Dublin Gas
Company and Waterford Gas Company the most appropriate
severance package was that which applied in Dublin Gas. The
Bord generously maintained the offer which was made to the
redundant workers in Dublin, despite the fact that the
Waterford Gas Company's financial position was far more
serious, and the longterm outlook far bleaker than for Dublin
Gas. (Details supplied to the Court). Waterford Gas Company
regard the offer made as being exceptionally generous, the
total net cost to the Company being #301,131.
2. The severance payments agreed for several local companies
were less than that being offered by the Bord. (Details
supplied to the Court). Furthermore, the national norm for
severance payments over the past year is 2 to 4 weeks' pay per
year of service.
3. All employees concerned in this case had the option of
redeployment if they so wished.
4. Any changes made to the severance terms offered to the
workers could have repercussive effects on agreements already
negotiated and implemented in Dublin Gas Company.
4. 5. Even though Waterford Gas Company is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Bord Gais Eireann, it operates as a completely
separate and independent commercial legal entity and cost
centre and there is no provision for cross subsidisation by
the parent Company.
CLAIM B - A ten point salary scale for clerical workers.
BACKGROUND:
5. On April 3rd, 1985, the Union on behalf of 5 clerical
employees in the Company sought the introduction of a ten point
clerical scale from #7,630 to #12,134 per annum. The Union
quantifies the claim in 1988 terms as #8,530 x 10 to #13,347 per
annum. The matter was the subject of intensive local negotiations
but was not resolved. The Company rejected the claim on the basis
that it understood the claim to have been settled under the 26th
wage round, in 1987, when a special increase of seven pounds per
week was paid to clerical and general operative grades following a
Labour Court hearing. The Company contends that this increase was
in full and final settlement of all outstanding clerical claims.
This is denied by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
6. 1. This claim is long outstanding and overdue through no
fault of the workers. There is no reason whatsoever why
clerical pay in Waterford should be the lowest of any of the
utilities. The application of the new rate should be
back-dated to take account of the original submission date of
1985. Apart from the back-pay element, a new rate would also
assist those being made redundant. Back-pay to 1985 would
amount to approximately #19,000 per worker concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The rates of pay of the workers concerned are not out of
line with local analogues or rates of pay within the region
e.g. Limerick Gas/Clonmel Gas. The Waterford Gas Company's
current annual clerical salary is #8,294 while the
Limerick/Clonmel rate ranges from #7,144 per annum to #9,024.
2. The settlement negotiated by the Company for the 26th wage
round was in full and final settlement of all outstanding
clerical claims. The financial position of the Company
precludes concession of the claim. (Details supplied to the
Court).
3. Even though Waterford Gas Company is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Bord Gais Eireann, it operates as a completely
separate and independent commercial legal entity and cost
centre and there is no provision for cross subsidisation by
the parent Company, Bord Gais Eireann.
CLAIM C - A wage increase for two workers.
BACKGROUND:
8. 1. Following local negotiations it was agreed to retain a gas
fitter and general operative in employment. The pay agreement
covering those workers expired on June 30th, 1988. The Union,
on behalf of the workers concerned, served a claim on the
Company for a 10% increase in pay. The Company rejected the
claim, and offered a 6 months pay pause followed by the
application of the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.).
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
9. 1. The offer made to the Union was based on the principle of
parity with Dublin Gas. The Union is not claiming parity with
Dublin Gas and this argument is not acceptable. There is no
good reason why the workers in Waterford should be paid the
low wages that they receive at present. (Details supplied to
the Court). Through its proposed rationalisation programme
the Company is making substantial savings. The 10% increase
for the 27th wage round should be put in place from July 1st,
1988. Given the amount of savings to the Company arising from
the redundancy programme, the claim is a reasonable one, and
the Union requests the Court to so recommend.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The financial position of the Company precludes any
payments in excess of the P.N.R. The Company has
accumulated losses of #1,800,000 to end of 1987 and
projected losses of #1,284,000 in 1988. The vast majority
of settlements to date have not exceeded the terms of the
P.N.R.
2. The cost of supplying town gas to customers is 80p per
therm more than L.P.G. Labour costs are a significant part
of this difference.
3. Wage rates in Waterford Gas Company are not out of line
with local analogues.
4. Even though Waterford Gas Company is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Bord Gais Eireann, it operates as a completely
separate and independent commercial legal entity and cost
centre and there is no provision for cross subsidisation by
the parent Company - Bord Gais Eireann.
CLAIM D - Compensation for loss of Gas concessions.
BACKGROUND:
11. Both current employees of the Company and retired old age
pensioners have a concessionary gas supply at a reduced rate. The
Company proposes to end this practice, and has offered
compensation according to the formula of five times the agreed
weekly loss x each year the rate has been held, to a maximum of
five years. The Union considers that this is inadequate and
claims compensation of three times the annual losses incurred for
the current workers, and six times the annual losses for the
pensioners.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
12. 1. The concession is something which the workers have
enjoyed over a long number of years. The Company's offer of
compensation is totally inadequate. Increased compensation
is needed for the old age pensioners, some of whom retired
on less than #5 per week. The Union claims compensation of
3 times the annual loss for the current workers and at least
six times the annual loss for the old age pensioners. The
Court is requested to recommend in favour of the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. The financial constraints on the Company preclude any
increase in this offer.
2. The Company would argue that any improvements would have
repercussive effects on agreements already negotiated and
implemented in Dublin Gas Company.
3. Staff are also entitled to avail of a new cooker free of
charge under the change-over scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
14. Having considered the submissions made by the parties on the
issues before it the Court recommends as follows:-
Redundancy Payments:
The Court does not consider that differences in basic pay warrant
any amendment to the Company's offer of the same terms as those
which applied in Dublin.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claims, either for an increase in the number of weeks per year of
service or in the retirement gratuity.
General Wage Increase:
Having regard to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
the Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
Introduction of Clerical Scale:
Having regard to the terms of the settlement negotiated in
September 1987 the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Compensation for Concessionary Gas:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer in this respect
should be accepted by these workers currently employed but would
further recommend that the Company consider doubling the offer to
pensioners who have benefited from this concession.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___25th___January,__1989. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman