Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89520 Case Number: LCR12558 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for retrospective payment of bonus increase.
Recommendation:
The Court, having regard to the terms on which the bonus is
paid generally, does not recommend payment of retrospection to the
workers concerned in this case.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89520 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12558
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NESTLE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:1. Claim for retrospective payment of bonus increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. There is an agreed average bonus paid to production workers in
the Company. The Unions sought to have the bonus of 110% extended
to the canteen staff. Following protracted discussions and an
unsuccessful trial period, designed by the Company to increase
productivity, the claim was referred to the Labour Court.
L.C.R.12177, issued on the 16th December, 1988, recommended in
favour of the Unions. The bonus was subsequently introduced on the
9th January, 1989. The Unions are now claiming that as the claim
took so long to settle, some element of retrospection should be
included. This has been rejected by Management. Local discussions
failed to resolve the matter and on the 6th July,1989, it was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference on the 18th July, failed to resolve the
dispute and it was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 4th September,
1989 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. While the substantive part of the original claim has been
settled, the retrospection, an integral part of this claim which
took two years to resolve, was not clearly brought to the Court's
attention for its decision. The claim for improved payments was
first made in the last quarter of 1986. In cases such as this it is
not unusual that some element of retrospection be included in the
final settlement.
3.2. The claimants have given increased effort and productivity to
the Company even before the claim was first raised, i.e.
1981 pre-cooked meals - canteen had 5 staff reduced by agreement
to 4 - pre-cooked eliminated.
1984 Cooked snacks and grills provided with same staff of 4.
1986 Full menu of meals available with same staff 4.
Note No improvement or addition of canteen equipment took place.
The withdrawal of the bonus payment to canteen staff who tried and
were unable to implement the Company proposal, while the welfare
section with less change required retained it, was invidious and
unfair and set back the possibility of a settlement.
3.3. The Company has refused to recognise this claim under any
circumstances and therefore, frustrated the Unions' attempts to
reach a negotiated settlement.
3.4. The Court is asked to recommend a retrospective payment to
the three workers and that this should be the maximum period back
to the last quarter of 1986 when the claim was formally first dealt
with.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. Throughout the course of both the earlier case (i.e. the
claim for 110% performance) and the current case (the claim for
retrospection) the Company's principle argument in rejecting the
Unions' claim has been the fact that no other group within the
factory was awarded the higher level of performance without making
some additional contribution. To treat the canteen operatives in a
more favourable manner would be inequitable.
4.2. The Labour Court in its previous recommendation recommended
that provided the workers concerned undertook to co-operate in any
future changes in the canteen operation or equipment, they should
be paid the 110% bonus without further delay. It is the Company's
contention that the Labour Court Recommendation clearly intended
that the award of the 110% performance would only be applicable
from a current date, i.e. the date of acceptance of the
recommendation.
4.3. The Labour Court Recommendation (12,177) was only accepted by
the Unions at the end of January, 1989 but the Company agreed to
backdate its implementation to the 9th January as a gesture of
goodwill.
4.4. The Company could not contemplate backdating retrospection
beyond that date as the canteen employees have already been treated
more favourably than any other group by getting 110% performance
without making any contribution. It was only in April, 1989 that
the canteen employees agreed to the proposal to change the method
of operation by reducing menus as a result of absenteeism.
4.5. The Unions' argument that the benchmark for retrospection
should be April,1988 has no substance whatsoever as the proposal
which was implemented around that time was only implemented by the
employees for a very short trial period whereupon it was rejected
as being unworkable. In accordance with established practice in
the Company the employees concerned received the 110% performance
for that short period but reverted to their former bonus level at
the termination of the trial period. The Company, by implementing
the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No. 12,177 with effect
from the 9th January,1989 acted in good faith, notwithstanding the
fact that this was a departure from exist ing practice in the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to the terms on which the bonus is
paid generally, does not recommend payment of retrospection to the
workers concerned in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
18th September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.