Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89848 Case Number: LCR12719 Section / Act: S67 Parties: L. D. INTERCON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for an increase in shift premiums.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having examined the history of the claim is of the
view that concession of the increased shift premium would be
contrary to the terms of the Programme for National Recovery as
submitted by the Company. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of the claim. The Court notes that
discussions have taken place between the parties on the
introduction of a bonus scheme. In the light of current earnings
the Court urges the parties to expedite the finalisation of these
talks and accordingly to meet to a degree the employees
expectations for increased financial reward.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89848 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12719
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: L. D. INTERCON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in shift premiums.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is a subsidiary of the German Leonische
Drathwerke A. F. Group, is situated in Birr, Co. Offaly. It
manufactures power cords, computer keyboard cables and cable
harness which are used in the electronic automotive and computer
hardware industrial sectors. Since commencing manufacturing in
1988 the Company has experienced rapid growth and currently
employs 350 people.
3. The Company operates a two shift and 3 shift system Monday to
Friday in addition to normal day work. The premium payment for 2
shift is T 1/6 and T 1/4 for 3 shift. The Union is seeking to
have these rates increased as follows:-
2 shift operation to T 1/4
3 shift operation to T 1/3 for night shift
T 1/4 for day and evening shifts.
4. The Company rejected the claim and the issue was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 16th June, 1989.
Conciliation conferences were held on 17th August and 8th
November, 1989. No agreement was reached and both parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Tullamore on 16th
January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The twenty-sixth wage round expired on the 28th February,
1988. The terms of the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.) were applicable from that date. Prior to the
expiration of the twenty-sixth wage round the Union, by letter
dated 2nd December, 1987, sought a review of the Comprehensive
Agreement. A meeting was held on the 14th January, 1988 at
which the Union expressed dissatisfaction with a number of
elements including the level of shift premium. At that time
and subsequently management sought to deal with the issue
within the context of discussions on a Comprehensive Agreement
review. It is the Union's view that the claim should be dealt
with at this time and not have it excluded under the P.N.R.
2. The Union's claim is fair and reasonable and brings the
rates into line with national and industrial averages. The
current rate of pay for operatives is #97.88 on recruitment
rising to #120.32 a week gross. The basic plus shift of #150
a week gross is an inadequate return for working a shift 12.00
midnight to 8. o'clock in the morning.
3. During the course of discussions the Company has
acknowledged that the basic wage is low and they have
indicated that they wish to introduce increased earnings
opportunities by way of an incentive scheme no later than
July, 1990. However no proposals of any type have been tabled
to date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. This claim is of a cost increasing nature and therefore
under Clause 4 of the Programme for National Recovery this
claim cannot be entertained.
2. An increase in shift premia would give rise to a
significant cost increase to this Company which operates in an
exceptionally competitive end of the market. In a
manufacturing process all costs are of necessity tightly
contained. The Company cannot make itself uncompetitive by
raising its shift premia to a rate in excess of that paid by
other companies in the Industry/Region. (Details supplied to
the Court).
3. The Company's labour costs as a portion of total
manufacturing costs are high due to the nature of the business
and the requirement for a high labour content. An increase in
shift premia would have a corresponding increase in labour
costs. Further cost increases will obviously affect the
Company's ability to compete successfully.