Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89876 Case Number: LCR12713 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RACAL MARINE IRELAND LIMITED - and - ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATION AND PLUMBING UNION |
Claim on behalf of seven employees for improvements in pay and conditions.
Recommendation:
21. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends as follows:-
(A) Wage increase: The Court recommends that the Company offer
of the terms provided under the Programme for National
Recovery, as modified, should be accepted.
(B) Payment of Overtime at Premium Rates: Having regard to the
Agreement on consolidation made in 1982 the Court does not
recommend concession of this claim.
(C) Reduction of Overtime: The Court does not consider
concession of this claim to be practicable having regard to
the nature of the Company's business.
(D) V.H.I. Payments: The Court recommends that the Company
offer be accepted.
(E) Clothing Allowance: The Court recommends that this be
increased to #50 per annum.
(F) Lunch and Subsistence Allowances: In this instance the
Court recommends that the Lunch Subsidy be increased to #3,
the daily disturbance allowance to #7 and that payment of
B & B against receipts be continued.
The Court notes that the parties are willing to meet to discuss
the planning and organisation of work and recommends that they
should do so.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89876 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12713
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RACAL MARINE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
ELECTRICAL ELECTRONIC TELECOMMUNICATION AND PLUMBING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of seven employees for improvements in pay and
conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the rental, sale and service of
capital goods to the marine industry and in particular to the
fishing sector. On the 14th July, 1989, the Union lodged the
following claim:-
Implementation of the wage round due under the Programme
for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
Payment of enhanced rate for overtime.
Reduction in the overtime hours being worked, specifically
the frequency of call out.
An increase in the lunch subsidy to #3.00.
Substantial increase in the overnight disturbance
allowance.
Increase in V.H.I. payments.
Substantial increase in clothing allowance.
Discussions required re: local management particularly
in respect of "Planning" and specifically last minute
planning.
The Company responded on the 5th September by offering to apply
the money terms of the P.N.R. and to increase the V.H.I.
contribution from #90 to #110. This offer was rejected and the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 7th September. At a conciliation conference on the
5th October, the Company modified its original offer on wages from
2.5% to 3%. This was also rejected and the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 4th
December. A Court hearing was held on the 18th December, 1989.
CLAIM (A) - WAGE INCREASE.
BACKGROUND:
3. The Union is seeking a substantial increase in salaries (in
excess of the PNR). The Company originally offered the monetary
terms of the PNR but later modified this to 3%.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union understands the connotations of the PNR in
respect of seeking payments in excess of those set out in the
Programme. However, apart from the fact that there is merit
in the claim, the Company has already paid in excess of the
PNR terms to members of senior management.
2. The Company has been highlighting the precarious state of
its operation and finances for some time now. The majority of
the claimants are sales/service engineers who because they
accepted that the Company had problems and trading
difficulties, undertook additional work in relation to the
promotion of the Company, the selling of its products and the
collection of money from clients for whom that Company had
carried out work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The offer of a 3% increase on basic and overtime rates is
made in view of the seriousness of the Company's trading
position.
2. More emphasis has been placed on the sale of capital
equipment with a view to ultimately generating sufficient
revenue to replace the losses due to the declining rental
business.
CLAIM (B) - PAYMENT OF THE NORMAL ENHANCED RATES OF OVERTIME.
BACKGROUND:
6. The claimants currently work overtime at flat rate and are
seeking rates of time and a half after normal finishing time up to
mid-night, double-time for all hours worked between mid-night and
normal starting time the following morning, time and a half for
the first four hours worked on Saturdays and double time for all
hours worked thereafter, up to normal starting time on Monday
morning. The claim has been rejected by the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The claimants currently work overtime at the flat rate and
while this continues the Company will not reduce the level of
overtime being worked and will persist in using overtime as a
means of getting work done at the cheapest possible rates.
2. The Company has a basic charge rate of #28 flat time,
#34.50 at time and a half and #40.50 at double time. This is
charged to customers but the members continue to be paid at
flat rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
8. 1. In 1982, in agreement with the Union, the premium rate for
overtime was consolidated when, on average, basic rates were
increased by 27%. The Company cannot therefore agree to or
afford a reintroduction of premium overtime rates.
CLAIM (C) - REDUCTION IN OVERTIME.
BACKGROUND:
9. The Union claim that the workers concerned have to work
excessive overtime hours and is seeking to have this reduced. The
Company does not accept that the level of overtime is excessive.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The claimants are working excessive levels of overtime,
often at locations which are a considerable distance from
their homes.
2. The Company is exploiting the call-out situation,
especially at week-ends (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
11. 1. The level of overtime worked has not increased in recent
years and in fact some of the claimants are doing less
overtime now than heretofore.
CLAIM (D) - FULL PAYMENT OF V.H.I. CONTRIBUTIONS.
BACKGROUND
12. The Union is seeking to have the Company pay the claimants'
full VHI contribution. The Company presently pays #90 and has
offered to increase this to #110.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
13. 1. The Company has refused to concede on this claim even
though it already pays the full contribution for members of
senior management. The Company could have used this matter
to show its appreciation of the tremendous co-operation and
flexibility being accorded to the Company by the claimants.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
14. 1. The Company has acknowledged this year's increased VHI
charges and has responded by offering a 22% increase in its
contribution - i.e. #110 per employee.
CLAIM (E) - INCREASE IN CLOTHING ALLOWANCE.
BACKGROUND:
15. The present clothing allowance is #31 per annum. The Union
is seeking to have this increased to #50. The Company has
rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
16. 1. The present allowance of #31 per annum has remained
unchanged for a long period and under the circumstances the
claim for #50 is reasonable. The claimants must present a
good image while often doing work in conditions that result
in damage to their clothing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
17. 1. Any increase in this allowance would seriously affect
the Company's labour cost and consequently make rates less
competitive in the labour services sector of the market.
CLAIM (F) - SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LUNCH SUBSIDY, OVERNIGHT
DISTURBANCE ALLOWANCE AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.
BACKGROUND:
18. While working away from home the claimants are entitled to a
lunch subsidy of #1.25p, a disturbance allowance of #5.50 and an
overnight disturbance allowance (bed and breakfast), which is not
a fixed amount but is paid by the Company to the employee
concerned on the basis of presentation of a receipt. The claim is
for a figure of #45 per day/night, which would cover all elements
currently paid. The Company has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
19. 1. The claimants must stay in decent establishments as they
represent the Company as sales/service engineers. The claim
for #45 is reasonable, covering as it does, the present
lunch subsidy and disturbance allowances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
20. 1. Any increases in these allowances would seriously affect
the Company's labour costs and as a consequence make its
rates less competitive in the labour services sector of the
market.
RECOMMENDATION:
21. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends as follows:-
(A) Wage increase: The Court recommends that the Company offer
of the terms provided under the Programme for National
Recovery, as modified, should be accepted.
(B) Payment of Overtime at Premium Rates: Having regard to the
Agreement on consolidation made in 1982 the Court does not
recommend concession of this claim.
(C) Reduction of Overtime: The Court does not consider
concession of this claim to be practicable having regard to
the nature of the Company's business.
(D) V.H.I. Payments: The Court recommends that the Company
offer be accepted.
(E) Clothing Allowance: The Court recommends that this be
increased to #50 per annum.
(F) Lunch and Subsistence Allowances: In this instance the
Court recommends that the Lunch Subsidy be increased to #3,
the daily disturbance allowance to #7 and that payment of
B & B against receipts be continued.
The Court notes that the parties are willing to meet to discuss
the planning and organisation of work and recommends that they
should do so.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
__25th__January,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman