Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89454 Case Number: LCR12472 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED MIDLETON - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 56 workers in the Midleton plant for a lump sum payment and weekly wage increase arising from the Company's Survival Plan.
Recommendation:
5. Having read the submissions from the Union and the Employers
and having considered the supplementary information provided
verbally at the Court hearing, the Court is not satisfied that the
claimants have been unreasonably treated having regard to the
compensation terms already accepted and to the profit sharing
scheme which is in operation and from which they have received
increased benefits in 1988.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89454 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12472
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED MIDLETON
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 56 workers in the Midleton
plant for a lump sum payment and weekly wage increase arising from
the Company's Survival Plan.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987, the Company introduced a Survival Plan at all its
plants which involved more capital investment and voluntary
redundancies. During the extensive negotiations on the Plan the
Union indicated it would, at a later date, be lodging a claim on
behalf of the workers remaining with the Company. The Union has
now submitted a claim on behalf of the remaining workers for a
weekly wage increase and a lump sum payment based on the increased
productivity resulting from the implementation of the Plan. The
claim was rejected by the Company and on 17th April, 1989, the
issue was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement could be reached at conciliation conferences
held on 10th May, and 9th June, 1989, and the matter was referred
on 13th June, 1989, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 20th June,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During all the negotiations on the Survival Plan the Union
made it abundantly clear to the Company that the remaining
workers would have to receive an acceptable compensation
package. New manning levels were imposed by the Company and
had to be accepted in order that the Company could survive.
3. 2. During the negotiations on the plan, the Company stressed
that it would be difficult to find enough work to keep all
employees fully occupied, that the shift process would be
curtailed and work could not be provided for a 5 day shift on
a regular basis. Similarly, in the stores area extra work
such as housekeeping and cleaning would have to be undertaken
to keep everyone occupied.
3. Warehouse personnel have been cut from 33 to 21 and in the
shift area there has been a change from a 7 day 4 shift
operation of 36 workers plus 10 relief workers to a 5 day 3
shift operation of 21 workers.
4. Production at the plant has risen since the Plan was
implemented. Less staff are producing more. As a result of
the increased production and reduction in worker numbers
normal routine housekeeping and cleaning jobs are being
carried out by contractors. The workers, as a result of their
co-operation with the Company, are being over-worked. In the
spirit store area the work traditionally performed by 33
workers is being carried out by 14 workers.
5. The workers have given complete co-operation to the Plan.
In many sections their numbers have reduced by over 50% and,
earnings have remained static or have reduced dramatically
through loss of overtime and shift, although the work load has
increased. This was not the workers' understanding of the
Plan. The Company's profits have been boosted by millions of
pounds as a result of the Plan. In these circumstances the
Union believes that the claim, which is not in breach of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and which can be
financed from savings, is fair and reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The P.N.R. stipulates that cost increasing claims are
specifically excluded. This claim contravenes the P.N.R. If
the claim were to be conceded the Company would be faced with
knock-on claims affecting approximately 500 employees. This
would undermine the advances made since the implementation of
the Plan.
2. Wage rates in the Company compare favourably with other
major companies and exceed the average industrial wage. The
full terms of the P.N.R. have been implemented by the Company
commencing on 1st September, 1988. In addition, plus pay will
be worth #40 per week from 1st September, 1990. This is an
increase of 27.5% from its February, 1988, value. The
workers' profit share in 1988, was valued at approximately
#1,500 and indications are that a higher payout will be made
in the current year.
4. 3. The Company needs a period of continuous cost improvement
if it is to compete internationally. Since 1975, when the new
distillery was commissioned, wage costs have accelerated
totally out of proportion to the national trends generally and
much more than wage developments in the Scottish industry, the
Company's main competitor. If this continues it will be
impossible to make inroads into overseas markets.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having read the submissions from the Union and the Employers
and having considered the supplementary information provided
verbally at the Court hearing, the Court is not satisfied that the
claimants have been unreasonably treated having regard to the
compensation terms already accepted and to the profit sharing
scheme which is in operation and from which they have received
increased benefits in 1988.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___19th___July,___1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.