Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89624 Case Number: LCR12557 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD PLC - and - IRISH TRNASPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for an increase in basic pay for six kegging operatives.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considering the submissions of the parties are of
the view that in all the circumstances the offer of the Company is
reasonable, however, in the interests of good will and good
industrial relations it is the recommendation of the Court that
the Company offer should be increased as follows:-
#30.26 per week be increased to #34.00 per week from the date of
acceptance of the recommendation to 31st December, 1989 and the
offer of #35.26 be increased to #42.00 with effect from 1st
January, 1990. All other aspects of the Company offer to be as
proposed by the Company.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89624 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12557
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD PLC
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRNASPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in basic pay for six kegging operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986, the Company in an effort to improve its productivity
and competiveness entered into discussions with the Union on the
operation of two extra kegging lanes. The kegging department
produces 240 kegs per hour on six lanes. Company proposals of an
eight lane kegging operation would increase production by 80 kegs
to 320 kegs per hour. During discussions the Company offered the
workers concerned an increase of #57.29 per week while the Union
claimed an increase of #62 weekly. The Company offer of #57.29
was rejected and negotiations terminated (in 1987). Discussions
recommenced recently, with the Company making a substantially
reduced offer of #30.26 per week - a further payment of #5 per
week would be made from 1st January, 1990. This offer was again
rejected by the Union and the claim was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 24th August, 1989. No
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 30th
August, 1989. The Company requested a full Court hearing. The
Union agreed and the Court investigated the dispute on 14th
September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The operation of two extra lanes would increase production
during normal working hours by 3100 kegs per week. This
production is currently done on overtime and represents
approximately four evenings or #120 per week per operator.
2. The claim and offer only refers to six employees. This
represents a difference of #160 per week between the Union's
claim and the Company's offer. (Union claim #62 - Company
offer #35.26 - No. of workers six = #62 - #35.26 x 6 = #160).
3. 3. In addition to the overtime costs incurred by the Company
in the kegging department, costs are also incurred in
"spin-off" areas such as craftsmen, supervisors, filter room
personnel and fork lift line service. The potential savings
for the Company, if the Union claim were to be met, are in the
region of #100,000 per annum.
4. The workers concerned with the claim cannot be expected to
accept an amount less than the figure offered previously by
the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The loss of the Carlsberg franchise resulted in a volume
reduction of in excess of 40% of business. Subsequently the
Company embarked on a major study designed to ensure the
brewery's survival and its return to profitability. The
introduction of the eight lane kegging operation has been
identified as a major factor in the survival plan.
2. The Company recognise that additional effort and
committment will be required from all staff, including the
kegging operatives. It is willing to pay reasonable, but
fair, compensation to workers involved. The Company cannot
accept that the original basis for claiming compensation
should be applied today. The level of overtime earnings on
which the claim was based have been drastically reduced
because of the loss of business. The Company cannot be
expected to compensate for any overtime loss attributable to
this factor.
3. The Company has made the following offer to the workers
concerned, which in its circumstances is very generous:-
(a) An increase of #30.26 on the basic rate for an
output of 300 kegs per hour on the introduction of
the eight lane kegging, until the end of December
1989, and on January 1st, 1990, a further increase
in the basic rate of #5.00 per week for an output
of 320 kegs per hour.
(b) Lump sum payments - a payment of #750 to the key
operator and #250 to each of the other operatives.
These payments will be repeated on January 1st,
1990.
The Company also intends to increase employment in the kegging
department from six to eight initially and in the long term to
seven workers.
4. The Company made an operating loss in the trading year to
June, 1989. It is making every possible effort to survive in
the short term and to return to normal profitability. Part of
the survival plan has been implemented by a reduction in the
workforce by upwards of seventy four employees.