Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89295 Case Number: LCR12442 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH COUNTRY BACON - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of 5 fitters and 3 electricians for the restoration of an agreed differential between the general operatives and the craft workers in the Rooskey factory.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case, is
not satisfied that there was an agreed differential between the
general operatives' and the craftsmens' rates of pay in the
Rooskey plant. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend that the
equalisation payments to the general operatives should be applied
to the craftsmens' rates.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89295 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12442
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH COUNTRY BACON
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 5 fitters and 3 electricians
for the restoration of an agreed differential between the general
operatives and the craft workers in the Rooskey factory.
BACKGROUND:
2. A rationalisation of the pig meat industry in the West of
Ireland resulted in the formation of the Company. This involved
the merging, in 1986, of 3 factories in Rooskey, Claremorris and
Castlebar. In July, 1986, agreement was reached with the unions
on rationalisation. The agreement contains a commitment to
equalisation of wages with the rates applying in the Castlebar
factory. Separate agreements were accepted by the general workers
represented by the I.T.G.W.U. and the craft workers represented by
the A.E.U. and the E.T.U. In line with its agreement with the
I.T.G.W.U., the Company negotiated the equalisation of pay between
the 3 factories on a phased basis as follows:-
#2.50 from 1st January, 1989.
#2.50 from 1st January, 1990.
#2.46 from 1st July, 1990.
The Union claimed that as a result of these increases to general
workers the differential previously obtaining between general
workers and craft workers has been eroded.
The Unions claimed that the payments made to the general workers
should be paid to the craft workers in the form of a percentage
increase in order to maintain the differential. The claim was
rejected by the Company on the basis that no established
differential existed and on 20th February, 1989, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
26th April, 1989, and the matter was referred on 2nd May, 1989, to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 6th June, 1989, in Longford.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions in 1980/81 drew up an agreement with the
Company to provide for procedural arrangements to deal with
questions arising i.e. disciplinary matters etc., together
with wages and conditions. However, because of an agreement
made in 1978, with the I.T.G.W.U. wages were held to increases
agreed by the Bacon Curing Joint Industrial Council (J.I.C.).
This agreement stated:
"...It is agreed that maintenance operatives will
operate within the J.I.C. (Bacon Curers)
Agreement and any such local agreements as may
exist on rates of pay and conditions of
employment. However, the Company will take into
consideration any changes in the Maintenance
Craft Agreement when negotiating with the
maintenance employees."
2. This particular agreement gives an undertaking that the
maintenance operatives, which means fitters and electricians,
will have their wages governed by the J.I.C. In order to
guarantee that undertaking the Unions found that in successive
negotiations the question of wages has always been governed by
the wage increases determined by the J.I.C. On no occasion
has the Company deviated from that in order to uphold their
agreement with the I.T.G.W.U. and as a consequence the workers
have since that period in time established differentials.
3. The Company might argue that this agreement, which was
made as a result of Labour Court Recommendation No. 11024 did
not apply to the craftsmen, but this is disputed by the facts,
in so far as an agreement was arrived at to equalise all bonus
payments. The bonus payments paid to general operatives in
the Rooskey factory at that time was 35%, it was reduced to
the agreed 33.3%. The craftworkers bonus which had previously
been at 32.67% was increased by a fraction of a percent to
bring it to 33.3% in line with the agreement.
3. 4. In addition, all the measures in changes in working hours
which were of major importance to the Company at that time
were also agreed by the craftworkers. So also did matters of
flexibility and interchangeability. Prior to the agreement
craftworkers were designated certain areas. This practice has
now been discontinued and they are fully flexible in all areas
of the Company in line with that rationalisation agreement.
Therefore the Unions would claim that we have an indisputable
right to the equalisation payment based on what has been the
custom and practice since 1978 and the written undertaking
given by the Company to the I.T.G.W.U., that the craftworkers
rates would be governed by the J.I.C. agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The original claim from the Unions was based on an alleged
agreement which fixed differentials between craft and general
workers. It was subsequently accepted that no such agreement
existed but the claim is being pursued on the basis of the
fact that wage increases over the years have been the same for
both groups. The Company does not accept that the present
claim can be validly based on that argument. If wage
increases over the last 8 years are examined it is apparent
that there is no established differential, the pay practices
for the various groups have differed and that the craftworkers
have enjoyed an increasing difference in their pay levels,
especially bonus levels, as opposed to general workers.
(Details supplied to the Court).
2. The increase granted to the general workers under the 1986
agreement was not intended for any other groups. In 1987,
when craftworkers entered into an agreement on terms and
conditions of employment, the question of equalisation was not
even raised. It was only raised when the first phase of the
increase was implemented. The Unions know that the craft
workers in Castlebar and Claremorris were on significantly
lower rates of pay and no reference to differentials was made.
Thus equalisation was not part of the craft workers agreement
and it cannot validly be raised at this stage.
3. When it was put into effect, the rationalisation plan
resulted in substantial reductions in earnings for most
general workers. The new bonus level of 33.3% involved a
decrease for general workers in Rooskey who previously enjoyed
a 35% bonus. By contrast the new 33.3% level meant a 0.7%
increase for craft workers. Thus, it is apparent that while
the craft workers got a net benefit from the agreement, the
general workers suffered a net loss. This claim would further
exacerbate that problem and would be likely to result in a
consequential claim from the general workers.
4. 4. On the question of the rationalisation plan itself and in
particular the 1987 agreement with craft workers, the Company
considers that it has not received full benefit and
co-operation from the craft workers. The demarcation clause,
'a common-sense approach' to demarcation, has not operated.
The Company have outlined particular difficulties in this area
and indicated a willingness to consider the present claim in
the context of a wider agreement on this issue. The Unions
declined to pursue this approach.
5. The Company has serious financial problems. It has not
returned to profitability since the rationalisation. The
Castlebar factory is due to close at the end of June, 1989,
and the Claremorris workers are currently on lay-off. Against
this background the claim cannot be justified. Concession
would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the equalisation
plan and would lead to consequential claims and general
unrest.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case, is
not satisfied that there was an agreed differential between the
general operatives' and the craftsmens' rates of pay in the
Rooskey plant. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend that the
equalisation payments to the general operatives should be applied
to the craftsmens' rates.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___22nd___June,___1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman