Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88916 Case Number: LCR12238 Section / Act: S67 Parties: L. M. ERICSSON LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims for (a) 1% increase in pay for four workers in the maintenance department, (b) staff status for four workers, and (c) non-contributory pension for a worker. CLAIM (A) - increase of 1% pay for four workers:
Recommendation:
Claim for 1% Increase in Maintenance Department:
16. The Court does not accept that the position of these workers
has been worsened by the extension to others of a benefit which
they already enjoy. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Claim for Staff Status:
17. The Court is of the opinion that having voluntarily opted to
become part of the production workers' group and having sought and
accepted similar conditions which apply to that group, the workers
concerned are not therefore entitled to the different benefits
which apply to the staff personnel. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of this claim.
Claim for Non-Contributory Pension Scheme for 1 Worker:
18. Having regard to the fact that the worker concerned appears
to have been unaware of the change in the conditions of employment
offered in his letter of appointment and had no reason to believe
that he had done anything to warrant such a change when he became
part of the production workers negotiating group the Court
recommends that in this singular instance the Union's claim on
behalf of this worker should be conceded.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88916 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12238
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: L. M. ERICSSON LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for (a) 1% increase in pay for four workers in the
maintenance department, (b) staff status for four workers, and
(c) non-contributory pension for a worker.
CLAIM (A) - increase of 1% pay for four workers:
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of the 27th wage round the Union claimed that a
Christmas voucher should be provided to production workers on the
basis that all other grades within the factory had this condition.
The Company agreed to provide the voucher as part of the overall
package (details supplied to the Court). The package which was
specific to the collective bargaining unit within the factory
provided for a wage increase of 3% for 12 months and payment from
the 1st day sick under the sick pay scheme (this brought the sick
pay into line with other areas).
3. The other groups (clerical, supervisory, software etc.)
negotiated and accepted a 4% offer. These workers were already in
receipt of a Christmas voucher.
4. The workers concerned in this claim who are part of the
collective bargaining group were already in receipt of the
Christmas voucher and they received the 3% pay increase and the
adjustment in the sick pay scheme. As the other groups within the
factory who received the 4% wage increase were already in receipt
of the Christmas voucher the workers concerned lodged a claim for
an increase of an extra 1% or a Christmas voucher equivalent to
1%. The Company rejected the claim and the matter, along with the
other issues, was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 7th January, 1988. A conciliation conference was
held on 6th April 1988. As no agreement was possible the parties
subsequently requested an investigation and recommendation by the
Labour Court. A Court hearing was held in Athlone on 13th
December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company's original offer recognised that the workers
concerned were a separate group and made provisions for
negotiations at a later date (details supplied to the Court).
The Company changed its position without an explanation.
2. The four workers received less than all the other
employees approximately 500, in the settlement of the claim.
They were therefore treated unfairly by the Company. It has
never been suggested that their contribution was any less
deserving or worthy of less reward than any other employee.
3. A strict reading of the Company's offer does not exclude
the Christmas voucher.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The employees who are bringing this claim are part of the
collective bargaining unit which negotiated and accepted the
terms of the 27th wage round. They cannot legitimately claim
to be exempted from part of the agreement which does not meet
with their approval. The balloting on the Company offer was
based on a majority acceptance as is normal in such cases and
the outcome did not require a unanimous vote. Therefore the
Company believes that all members of the collective bargaining
unit involved are bound by the outcome and that to make any
exception would introduce a highly dangerous state of affairs
into our industrial relations. We have indications that the
outcome of this claim is being closely watched by other
employees with a view to further claims.
2. The 27th round pay deal varied across the Company
dependant on the specific claims and circumstances which
prevailed in the different business areas of the Company at
the time. The deal that emerged in the factory was peculiar
to that Company and took into consideration amongst other
things the ability of the Company to pay for the deal. It is
not tenable to now make a comparison with other areas of the
Company, particularly on the basis of the 1% difference in
adjustment to rates which is only one element of the total
package.
3. The wage deal which emerged from the 27th wage round
included a no further cost increasing claims clause.
CLAIM (B) - Staff status for four workers:
BACKGROUND:
7. When the Company originally commenced manufacturing in Athlone
in 1974 all hourly paid operatives were required to become and
remain members of the I.T.G.W.U. As the plant expanded it became
necessary to recruit personnel in the maintenance department.
These people were recruited as part of staff and therefore were
not part of the closed shop arrangement. Accordingly such staff
held staff benefits (the main benefit being the inclusion in a
non-contributory pension scheme).
8. The maintenance personnel subsequently joined the Union and
now have their terms and conditions negotiated by the Union. Over
the years workers from the production area were promoted to the
maintenance area and requested that they be paid on a weekly basis
rather than monthly (which applies to staff workers). The Company
agreed to this and took the view that staff conditions should not
apply to new recruits. However the original personnel who enjoyed
staff benefits still retain them.
9. The Union has now lodged a claim for full staff status for all
workers in the maintenance department. The Company rejected the
claim and the matter was one of the items discussed at the
conciliation conference held on 6th April, 1988 and on which no
agreement was reached.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. Three workers in the maintenance department, are in
receipt of full staff status which in effect now means
inclusion in non-contributory pension scheme. Other benefits
in that status has gradually extended to other employees over
recent years. The Court will appreciate that inclusion in a
non-contributory pension scheme is a valuable benefit to any
employee.
2. It is not surprising that the four workers concerned in
the maintenance department have become increasingly
frustrated by their exclusion from this scheme. These four
members work in the same department and are treated as a team
and paid on a similar basis. All of the four claimants have
an excellent work record and their contribution to the
effectiveness of the department is as significant as the
other three.
3. The Company's differentation of treatment of employees is
inexplicable and contradicts not only normal employee
relation practices but more particularly the advanced
employment conditions this Company purports to have in place
for all its employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The claim before the Court today arises out of the
comparison of conditions between maintenance employees which
was the subject of a previous Court investigation, (LCR10,001
refers). The Company indicated its concern at the knock-on
effects of that claim during discussions with the Union, in
its submission to the Court and in its letter seeking
clarification of LCR10,001. The Union stated in its
arguments to the Court that concession of that claim would
not result in any other consequential claim. The Court in
its clarification of LCR10,001 stated that the recommendation
should not be regarded as an indication that staff status
should be given to others.
11. 2. This claim is clearly consequential on concession of the
previous claim and if conceded will undoubtedly lead to
further consequential claims. It is the Company's contention
that the Union's own argument originally made to the Court is
now being compromised to suit the needs of this consequential
claim. Concession in this instance would in the Company's
opinion ignore the Court's own clarification of the matter.
CLAIM (C) - Inclusion of a worker in non-contributory
pension scheme:
BACKGROUND:
12. The worker concerned originally joined the Company on 25th
June, 1979 as a fitter/turner/maintenance mechanic in the
maintenance department. In his letter of appointment dated 13th
June, 1979 he was informed that a non-contributory pension and
life assurance scheme would be provided in the future. He was not
put on a pension scheme at that time as he was under age.
13. In 1981 the Union and the Company negotiated a contributory
pension scheme for the shop floor workers which the worker
concerned joined. The worker believed he had also been
automatically included in the non-contributory pension scheme and
considered that he was doubling up on his pension benefits.
However he recently discovered that he was not in the
non-contributory pension scheme. The Union have now claimed that
he should be included in the scheme retrospectively and that he be
removed from the contributory scheme and be reimbursed his
contributions. The Company have rejected the claim and the matter
was also discussed at the conciliation conference held on 6th
April, 1988 and no agreement was reached.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. In a letter of the 2/12/87, the Company admitted that the
worker, had "access to a non-contributory pension scheme".
But the letter goes on to state that because he joined the
Union he attracted the terms and conditions of employment
negotiated between the Union and the Company which included a
contributory pension scheme and as a result he lost his
entitlement to a non-contributory scheme. The Company is
arguing that by joining the Union he worsened his conditions
of employment. This is totally unacceptable to the Union.
2. The Court is asked to recommend that the Company honour
its binding commitment in the original contract of
employment. That is, that he be retrospectively placed on
the non-contributory pension scheme, be removed from the
contributory scheme and be reimbursed his contributions.
3. From the beginning of his employment he received the
other conditions associated with staff status such as payment
of Christmas voucher. Such status implicitly acknowledged a
right to a non-contributory pension scheme. His description
as a 'staff' employee is acknowledged in a letter of the 3rd
December, 1981, signed by the industrial relations manager.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
15. 1. The worker has been part of the unionised closed shop in
the factory since his date of employment. As such his
interests have been represented by the Union. This would
have been the case when the negotiations took place on the
pension scheme and in the subsequent implementation of the
contributory scheme. Given that he was part of the
collective bargaining unit which negotiated a contributory
pension scheme and set aside the provision for a
non-contributory scheme he cannot now seek the
non-contributory scheme on the strength of his original job
offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim for 1% Increase in Maintenance Department:
16. The Court does not accept that the position of these workers
has been worsened by the extension to others of a benefit which
they already enjoy. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Claim for Staff Status:
17. The Court is of the opinion that having voluntarily opted to
become part of the production workers' group and having sought and
accepted similar conditions which apply to that group, the workers
concerned are not therefore entitled to the different benefits
which apply to the staff personnel. The Court does not therefore
recommend concession of this claim.
Claim for Non-Contributory Pension Scheme for 1 Worker:
18. Having regard to the fact that the worker concerned appears
to have been unaware of the change in the conditions of employment
offered in his letter of appointment and had no reason to believe
that he had done anything to warrant such a change when he became
part of the production workers negotiating group the Court
recommends that in this singular instance the Union's claim on
behalf of this worker should be conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___25th___January,___1989. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman