Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89721 Case Number: LCR12640 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LIEBHERR (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for an increase in bonus/wages on behalf of three forklift and two mobile crane drivers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis for recommending concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89721 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12640
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LIEBHERR (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an increase in bonus/wages on behalf of
three forklift and two mobile crane drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1979 an incentive bonus scheme was introduced by
the Company for workshop employees. The bonus for production
employees was performance related whereas the bonus for indirect
employees (which includes the workers concerned) was a fixed
weekly payment. As from May, 1982 the fixed bonus was replaced by
paying 15% of basic pay to be percentage related from then on. In
the past few years the production workers have increased their
earnings through increased performance levels whereas the indirect
workers have a fixed rate of bonus/differential. Recently the
Company introduced new equipment which is operated by the workers
concerned and the Union submitted a claim for an increase in
bonus/wages on their behalf. The Company rejected the claim.
Local discussions failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
18th July, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 5th
October, 1989 (the earliest date suitable to both parties) but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 13th October,
1989. A Court hearing was held in Killarney on the 2nd November,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has introduced new machinery which is now
being operated by the workers concerned. The indirect bonuses
should be brought up to a level which takes into account the
increased work load on the workers concerned. In view of the
earnings of other personnel the increase must reflect
adequately the enormous contribution that these workers make
to the smooth running of the factory and the efficient supply
of materials to the production workers.
3. 2. The Union acknowledges that the indirect bonus has been
increased to 20% as from 5th June, 1989. However, the quality
control and maintenance sections received an increase in
differential payment, this in addition to the 20%. The
workers concerned receive no differential whatsoever while
they contribute as much as any other indirect employee in the
plant. All other indirect workers have a differential of one
kind or another yet the workers concerned have none.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the 1st January, 1989 the 2nd Phase of the Programme
for National Recovery (P.N.R.) was implemented by the Company.
Having reminded the Union of the "no cost increasing claim
clause" under the terms of the P.N.R. the Company made the
adjustment upwards on the differential for maintenance and
control personnel as well as also increasing the 15% indirect
bonus to 20% for all indirect departments including the
workers concerned. This increase was justified by the Company
on the basis that production workers had increased their bonus
earnings through job performance, whereas the indirect
employees had a fixed bonus rate.
2. The Union confirmed that the Company's proposal had been
accepted by the indirect departments with the exception of the
workers concerned. It must be pointed out that these workers
are paid the skilled basic rate of pay i.e. #180.72 plus 20%
bonus #36.14 giving weekly earnings of #216.86. These rates
compare very favourably with other comparable employments in
the region. Under the signed wage agreement for 1989 and the
agreed 5% bonus increase in June, 1989 for all indirect
departments, there is no valid basis for a further increase to
the workers concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis for recommending concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__16th__November,__1989. ___________________
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman