Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8969 Case Number: LCR12319 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 40 workers for a productivity increase under the terms of the 26th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted the financial position of the Company as outlined at
the hearing.
While the claimants hold that they are entitled to a wage increase
on foot of increased productivity achieved, the Company maintain
that output by the workers concerned falls short of what it should
be.
In the light of the evidence presented, the Court considers that
management's offer is reasonable and should be accepted by the
claimants. Should it be felt that productivity should be measured
at some stage, the Court recommends that a basis for measuring
productivity should be agreed in discussions between the parties
and also that this exercise should be undertaken in conjunction
with a work measurement study in order that a balanced assessment
of the position might be made.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8969 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12319
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NEWBRIDGE CUTLERY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 40 workers for a
productivity increase under the terms of the 26th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the 26th wage round the Union lodged a claim on behalf
of the workers for a 12% increase in basic pay. The issue was
investigated by the Labour Court, who in Recommendation No. 11206
recommended a 6% increase from 1st January, 1987, and urgent talks
on ways of improving productivity. The Recommendation was
rejected by the workers and strike notice was served. At a
conciliation conference on 1st September, 1987, the following
settlement terms were proposed:-
(a) 6% increase from 1st January, 1987, to 30th November,
1987;
(b) 3% increase from 1st December, 1987 to 30th June, 1988;
(c) negotiations to take place in July, 1988 on a further
increase based on achieved increased productivity; and
(d) agreement to terminate on 30th June, 1988.
These proposals were accepted by the parties, however, in July,
1988, a dispute arose in relation to the correct interpretation of
Clause (c). The Union believes that any increase in productivity
should be measured from the date of the proposal. The Company
argues that productivity at that time was at a particularly low
level and that as a result it is necessary to refer back some
years to when productivity was at a more reasonable level in order
to establish a base measuring point. On 12th August, 1988, the
dispute was referred back to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. At a conciliation conference held on 13th October,
1988, and 25th January, 1989, the Company offered to pay the 3%
difference between the Union's original claim of 12% and the 9%
already conceded. The 3% would be phased in over the 3 years of
the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and would be in
addition to the increases specified in the P.N.R. The proposal
was rejected by the workforce and on 25th January, 1989, the
parties referred the dispute to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the matter on 22nd
February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. Both the Union and the Industrial Relations Officer
understood that the productivity to be measured and paid for,
were such increases achieved from the date of the 26th wage
round. The Union in October, 1988, wrote to management
seeking output figures for the period of the agreement, and
also sought to involve the Union's Industrial Engineer to
verify and value such productivity. The Company agreed that
they had to make an adjustment in respect of the productivity
element but pleaded their inability to meet any additional
claim on the Company, offering only to adjust the rates by the
difference between the 26th wage round claim (12%) and that
conceded (9%) phased over the period of the P.N.R. The
Company rejected the request to allow the Union's Industrial
Engineer to examine throughput. This was rejected by the
workforce who demanded a substantial increase in line with
improvements in productivity.
2. The Union wishes the Court to appoint an independent
assessor to undertake the following:-
(a) establish the increased productivity and potential
productivity within the terms of clause 3 of the
26th wage round agreement;
(b) put a value on such productivity and potential
productivity; and
(c) determine the Company's ability to meet (b) above,
without affecting the Company's viability.
3. The Union also seeks that the full text of the assessor's
report be made available to both parties so that a full and
comprehensive understanding of the assessor's evaluation and
conclusions would be made available to both the workers and
the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1979, wages have increased considerably, varying
from 250% to 330%. At the same time both holidays and service
pay have increased. Wage rates are higher than any of the
Company's competitors.
2. The Company almost closed in 1987, due to its serious
financial position. Closure was only averted by restructuring
loans to enable the Company to survive.
3. The Company contends that the concept of payment for
increased output is nonsense. The Company can expect its
workforce to increase output having already paid for it over
the last 9 years. Throughput has increased but it is still at
levels lower than it was during the late 1970's.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted the financial position of the Company as outlined at
the hearing.
While the claimants hold that they are entitled to a wage increase
on foot of increased productivity achieved, the Company maintain
that output by the workers concerned falls short of what it should
be.
In the light of the evidence presented, the Court considers that
management's offer is reasonable and should be accepted by the
claimants. Should it be felt that productivity should be measured
at some stage, the Court recommends that a basis for measuring
productivity should be agreed in discussions between the parties
and also that this exercise should be undertaken in conjunction
with a work measurement study in order that a balanced assessment
of the position might be made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
21st March, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.