Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89540 Case Number: LCR12573 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RELIABLE PLASTICS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 workers for an increase in wage rates and shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the terms set out in the Industrial
Relations Officer's document of 14th July, 1989 and which were
recommended for acceptance by the representatives of both the
Union and the Company present at the conference should be offered
by the Company and accepted by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89540 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12573
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RELIABLE PLASTICS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 workers for an increase in
wage rates and shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures plastic mouldings, mainly for export
and was taken over by its present owner when it went into
liquidation in 1982. The workers joined the Union in May, 1989.
The workers at that time were in receipt of the following rates of
pay and shift premium:-
Basic 3 Shift Permanent Night
Pay Cycle Shift
Machine Operator 107.92 5% 10%
Assembly Operator 88.22
Quality Controller 119.70 5%
Stores 114.60
At a meeting with the Company on 29th May, 1989, the Union
outlined the following claim:-
(a) that operators' basic pay be increased from #2.70 per
hour to #3 per hour,
(b) that all other grades be amended by the monetary
adjustment in (a),
(c) that shift premium be increased to 25% for 3 shift cycle
and 20% for permanent night shift.
The Company rejected the claim and made a counter offer of a 2
year agreement with an increase of 5% on basic pay from 1st July,
1989, with an increase to 10% shift premium for all workers. This
proposal was rejected by the Union. As no agreement could be
reached locally, the matter was referred on 10th July, 1989, to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. During a
conciliation conference held on 12th July, 1989, the following
proposals emerged which both parties agreed to recommend for
acceptance:-
(i) with effect from 1st July, 1989, basic pay will be
increased by 5% and shift premiums will be increased to
12.50%,
(ii) with effect from 1st July, 1990, basic pay will be
increased by a further 5% and shift premium will be
increased to 15%,
(iii) the agreement will terminate on 30th June, 1991.
These proposals were accepted by the Union, however, the Company
rejected them and reverted to its original offer saying that as
the Company was losing money it could not afford to pay any more
than its offer. This was unacceptable to the Union and on 3rd
August, 1989, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 7th September, 1989, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union was most disappointed to learn that the Company,
having agreed to recommend acceptance of the proposals
emanating from the conciliation conference, decided to change
its position and without consultation remove the 3 shift cycle
and introducing a fixed shift system. This had the following
effect:-
(a) 8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m. Basic pay
(b) 4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m. Basic pay + 10% shift premium
(c) 12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. " " " " "
Two quality controllers rotate between shifts and receive
basic pay plus 5% shift premium.
2. The Union has no records of similar levels of shift
premiums in industry as apply in this Company. In the light
of the low wage rates and premiums that apply in the Company,
normal and accepted standards should be applied to these
workers. (Details of wage rates and shift premia for the
industry were supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has grown in a short time from one with 4,000
square feet of premises and a workforce of 26 to one with
36,000 square feet of premises and workforce of 60. It is
natural that in such a short time there has to be problems and
the Company is the first to recognise this. The Company is
attempting to ensure its commercial future and has invested
heavily in preparations for the 'Single European Market' in
1992. As a result of this investment the Company has won a
number of awards for its products.
2. At the moment the Company is having financial difficulties
and is unable to offer its workers more than #4 extra per
week. The Company is confident that the financial
deterioration will stop and is making every effort in this
regard. Production levels, which have dropped 30% since May,
1989, resulting in 25% of the Company's premises being leased
to another company and the laying-off of 16 workers, are
beginning to increase again. In fact so much so, that the
Company are currently working on the introduction of a bonus
system.
3. Until the Company is on a safe financial footing there is
very little it can do to meet the Union's claim. The Union
has been offered a seat on the Board of Directors of the
Company and have been offered the Company's accounts for
inspection. (Copies of the Company's accounts for the years
ending 31st December, 1986, 1987, and 1988 were provided to
the Court). If either the Union or the Labour Court can see
from the Company's record any way the Company can improve, the
Company would be willing to go along with the same.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the terms set out in the Industrial
Relations Officer's document of 14th July, 1989 and which were
recommended for acceptance by the representatives of both the
Union and the Company present at the conference should be offered
by the Company and accepted by the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
_25th__September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.