Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90329 Case Number: LCR12944 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURY (IRELAND) P.L.C. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning an annual house agreement on pay and conditions.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and in particular the reference to the particular context in which
negotiations within the Company take place. These however in the
opinion of the Court do not override the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery and as the claims made by the Unions are
clearly contrary to the terms of the Programme the Court does not
recommend their concession by the Company.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90329 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12944
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CADBURY (IRELAND) P.L.C.
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an annual house agreement on pay and
conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. In recent years the Company and Unions have negotiated changes
in pay structure annually on a house agreement basis. The last
agreement expired in January, 1990. The Unions then served the
following claims on the Company:
1. Substantial increase in pay on basic and grades.
2. Alignment of service days and service pay.
3. Overtime to be paid on the same basis as maintenance
workers.
4. Full payments of V.H.I. by the Company to be consolidated
on an on-going basis.
5. An allowance of #5.75 per day to be paid to day workers.
This is relative to the allowance paid to craftsmen.
6. Good attendance bonus to be raised from #62.50 to #100.00
and from #50.00 to #75.00.
7. Paid lunch break for day workers.
8. Reduction of working week to 38 hours.
9. Improved surgery facilities. This would include:-
a. The provision of cancer screening facilities for
cervical smear testing and breast screening.
b. The extension of the use of the Company doctor to
employees families.
c. Full facilities for pensioners.
d. The extension of the nursing cover on a 24 hour
basis.
10. Provision of creche facilities by the Company.
11. The first #5.00 of the employees pension contribution to
be paid by the Company.
12. The period in which employees must remain on F. & G.
grade jobs be reduced to 6 months.
13. Provision of additional paternity leave.
The Unions wish to add the following to Clause 2.A. of the Lates
and Absences Procedure dealing with warnings:-
"That this does not apply to any other Procedure."
In response to the Unions' claims the Company made the following
offer:-
(i) a 3% increase in basic and shift rates for a 12 month
period,
(ii) to make permanent the V.H.I. arrangement, which was to
end in 1990, for this and future years by continuing to
pay a lump sum to all employees,
(iii) to set up a facility whereby all employees could avail
of a general health check on a voluntary basis. (These
checks to be carried out over a three year period with
the position to be reviewed at the end of that period),
(iv) to examine if a need exists for a creche facility and if
a need should exist, to assist in the setting up of such
a facility.
This offer was rejected by the Unions as it fell short of
expectations and did not address their other claims. As no
agreement could be reached at local level the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 3rd May,
1990. A conciliation conference was held on 15th May, 1990 at
which no agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 26th
June, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which took place
on 29th June, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has done well over the last number of years
and has had reported profits of eight million pounds in 1989.
This is due in no small measure to the flexibility of the
workforce which co-operated in wide ranging change in recent
years. This co-operation and flexibility should be adequately
rewarded by the Company.
2. The Company may argue that the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) provides for increases in pay which have
been met. In any discussion on pay negotiations with the
Company it has to be realised that negotiations are conducted
on a house agreement basis and also on an annualised basis.
Both parties are aware of national trends on pay and
conditions but at the end of the day parties do their business
on the basis of how the Company is performing. In the last
two house agreements the Unions secured pay increases related
to the profitability of the Company.
3. The Company on expiry of the last house agreement only
addressed a few of those claims in its offer. While the
Unions had basic pay as a priority there are other areas on
the list of claims where improvement could be made and a
reasonable package put together. The package offered by the
Company is inadequate and should be improved substantially,
particularly with reference to basic pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is at a cost disadvantage with its European
competitors because of high costs in terms of wages, energy,
materials, insurance etc. In the last four years the Company
has made a major investment to modernise and renew existing
plant in an effort to reduce unit cost and thus become more
competitive. It is against this background that the Company
must decide what it can afford in relation to improvements in
pay and benefits. If it has to pay more than it can afford
the future of the business and numbers employed will be put at
risk.
2. The Company has paid very favourable rates over the years
and has in some respects exceeded its obligations under the
P.N.R. in terms of pay, investment, job creation, and the
introduction of a 39 hour week. The Company's offer of 3% in
relation to basic pay plus the other benefits on offer is the
most the Company can afford.
3. The Unions may claim that the Company is different to
other companies when it comes to increases under the P.N.R.
because of the flexibility and co-operation given by the
workforce. The reality of the situation is that without
ongoing flexibility and co-operation as an integral part of
the strategy to renew and update plant in an effort to become
competitive the Company would not survive.
4. The claims by the Unions are contrary to Clause 4 of the
P.N.R. which precludes additional cost increasing claims. The
Company is not in a position to concede them.
5. The Company already gives 23 days holidays as it stands
besides service days. This compares more than favourably with
other good employments in terms of annual leave entitlements.
There is no good reason therefore to grant extra service days.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and in particular the reference to the particular context in which
negotiations within the Company take place. These however in the
opinion of the Court do not override the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery and as the claims made by the Unions are
clearly contrary to the terms of the Programme the Court does not
recommend their concession by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________________
11th July, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.