Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90535 Case Number: LCR13082 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ABBOTT IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 70 workers at the Company's Cootehill plant concerning a wage agreement and related matters.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court makes
the following recommendations:-
Wage Increase:
Having regard to existing and projected inflation rates, the
particular need for wage stability in the business and the
benefits arising from the proposed improvements in conditions of
employment, the Court considers that the three year agreement
proposed by the Company is fair and reasonable and should be
accepted by the Union.
On-going Change:
Linkage of Works Agreement to Wage Agreement:
The Court considers that both these items relate to a desire by
the Union for a flexibility that allows for the submission of some
form of compensation claim in respect of change. The actual rates
and the approach to pay-bargaining, as indicated by the last
agreement which was significantly better than the P.N.R., confirm
the policy of rewarding performance, including acceptance of
change, through good basic rates and conditions rather than by
piece-meal additions in respect of specific items. In the
circumstances, the Court considers that for this agreement the
clause concerning change should continue as in previous
agreements. The Court also considers that the appropriate and
logical time for review of the Works Agreement is at the
negotiation of the Wage Agreement as occurred on this occasion.
39 hour week:
The Court notes the acceptance in principle by the Company of the
39 hour week despite the fact that the sides were not party to the
P.N.R. and its related Framework Agreement on Working Hours. The
Court recommends that the reduced working hours should be
introduced in the Company from 1st September, 1991.
Disability Plan:
The Court noted the Company's undertaking that anyone deemed fit
for work, following a period on the Disability Plan, would be
re-employed immediately. The Company also confirmed that wherever
possible such a person would be accommodated in his old job.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90535 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13082
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ABBOTT IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 70 workers at
the Company's Cootehill plant concerning a wage agreement and
related matters.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was not party to the Programme for National
Recovery having agreed a 3-year deal in June, 1987, which gave
three annual increases of 5% each. This agreement expired on 31st
May, 1990. The Company has offered a further 3-year agreement
providing for three annual increases of 4% on 1st June each year
or alternatively two annual increases of 4% on 1st June, 1991 and
1st June, 1992 with a 4% lump sum on 1st December, 1990, 1991 and
1992 which can be taken as shares. The Company also offered to
introduce a subsidy towards the cost of V.H.I. cover, to increase
service pay by #20 per annum at 13 years and introduce a new point
of #160 for 15 years service, to allow staff to make additional
voluntary contributions to the non-contributory pension scheme and
to introduce a 39 hour week with effect from March, 1992. These
proposals are linked to revisions in the Works Agreement and a
clause about co-operation with on-going change. The Union
rejected the Company's proposals and indicated that its preference
was for a one-year agreement incorporating a 6% increase from 1st
June, 1990 and a 39-hour week no later that 1st January, 1991.
The Union also objected to the linking of changes in the Works
Agreement to the Pay Agreement and indicated that the clause on
on-going change was too broad. As no agreement could be reached
locally, the matter was referred on 20th June, 1990, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 23rd August, 1990 and
the matter was referred on 31st August, 1990 to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 16th October, 1990, in Cavan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers' preference for a one year agreement is in
line with recent Union policy. It is relatively simple to
understand this preference in the light of the predicated
impact of the Single European Market and the current unstable
nature of the world market. While informed economic opinion
suggest that inflation will not rise above 4% over the next
year, it is difficult to feel confident about the accuracy of
that prediction.
2. The Company's proposals for a three-year wage agreement,
with no provision for either review or indexation, will not
meet the workers' expectation. The workers' expectation is
for a one-year agreement incorporating a 6% wage increase from
1st June, 1990 and the implementation of the 39-hour week from
no later than 1st January, 1991. A very poor second to that
preference is a 2 or 3 year agreement for 6% per annum with
agreed indexation for any increase in the Consumer Price Index
over that figure as well as the shorter working week from 1st
January, 1991.
3. The workers believe that their expectation is reasonable
in view of the highly profitable operation of the Company.
The Company is not labour intensive, therefore, labour costs
are not the major cost consideration. Productivity has
increased over the past year and raw material costs are
decreasing. The Company has benefitted from this. In the
light of the Company's performance and profitability the
workers' claim is reasonable.
4. The Union does not believe that the Works Agreement
should be linked to the Wage Agreement. It should be possible
to change the Works Agreement at any time, not just when a
Wage Agreement is being concluded. The Union further believes
that the clause concerning on-going change is too broad.
Consultation should take place prior to change and the workers
should not be prevented from pursuing some form of
compensation when the Company introduces substantial changes.
5. The Union is also concerned with the restrictive nature
of the Company's Disablement Benefit Plan, which leaves a
worker, on recovery from long term illness and having received
benefit under the Plan, unsure of having a job to return to.
Under the Company's Plan a worker effectively has to re-apply
for his job and if it is not available or a suitable
alternative position, he may be faced with a period of
unemployment or have to claim redundancy. This prospect can
be used to dissuade workers from claiming under the Plan in
the first place. The Union believes that this should be
altered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the last Wage Agreement in the Company, the
workers received a wage increase of 5% each year as opposed to
the 2.6% increase received by those workers covered by the
P.N.R. Each worker earned #1,600 more than he would have
earned under the P.N.R. The workers also benefitted from the
tax reductions which emanated from the P.N.R.
2. The Company's offer which was made on a whole range of
areas including pay was made in he context of a 3-year
agreement. The Company would not be in a position to sustain
the level of pay increases proposed or the benefit changes
except in the context of a 3-year agreement. It is also
necessary to provide stability in labour costs in order to
enable the Company bid for business.
3. Another group of workers in the Company have already
accepted a similar offer over a 3-year agreement and any
concessions in the Company's offer to this particular group
would lead to repercussive claims which would damage the
Company's competitive position. In the context of the current
rate of inflation and in the context of the other changes in
benefits which have been offered there is no basis for the
Union's claim for a 6% increase.
4. The Company was not party to the P.N.R. and as already
stated paid increases in excess of those made under the P.N.R.
The workers do not have an automatic entitlement to a
reduction in the working week. The Union's claim for
immediate introduction of a reduced working week is unfounded
and unrealistic. Given the costs involved in conceding this
claim and and the improvements offered in pay and other areas,
the only basis on which the Company could consider this claim
is in the context of a 3-year agreement and with an
implementation date of March, 1992.
5. The Company does not understand the Union's objection to
the on-going change clause in the Works Agreement. It is
normal practice to have a clause relating to co-operation with
on-going change during the currency of an agreement. The
Company have had the exact same clause in the Works Agreement
at the Cootehill Plant for the last 9 years. The clause in
question reads as follows:-
The Union and Employees recognise the changing
needs of the business and are prepared to
co-operate with ongoing change; all parties
recognising that a strong Company responsible and
flexible to market needs is the best guarantee for
future employment and the only means for securing
jobs for the long terms.
4. 6. The Works Agreement, which has operated over the past 11
years, has always been linked to discussions on the Wage
Agreement and there has always been a clause in the Wage
Agreement which says that it will run for the period of the
Wage Agreement. This is also the situation for other workers
in the Cootehill Plant who are represented by another Union
and indeed for workers in the Company's other plants.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court makes
the following recommendations:-
Wage Increase:
Having regard to existing and projected inflation rates, the
particular need for wage stability in the business and the
benefits arising from the proposed improvements in conditions of
employment, the Court considers that the three year agreement
proposed by the Company is fair and reasonable and should be
accepted by the Union.
On-going Change:
Linkage of Works Agreement to Wage Agreement:
The Court considers that both these items relate to a desire by
the Union for a flexibility that allows for the submission of some
form of compensation claim in respect of change. The actual rates
and the approach to pay-bargaining, as indicated by the last
agreement which was significantly better than the P.N.R., confirm
the policy of rewarding performance, including acceptance of
change, through good basic rates and conditions rather than by
piece-meal additions in respect of specific items. In the
circumstances, the Court considers that for this agreement the
clause concerning change should continue as in previous
agreements. The Court also considers that the appropriate and
logical time for review of the Works Agreement is at the
negotiation of the Wage Agreement as occurred on this occasion.
39 hour week:
The Court notes the acceptance in principle by the Company of the
39 hour week despite the fact that the sides were not party to the
P.N.R. and its related Framework Agreement on Working Hours. The
Court recommends that the reduced working hours should be
introduced in the Company from 1st September, 1991.
Disability Plan:
The Court noted the Company's undertaking that anyone deemed fit
for work, following a period on the Disability Plan, would be
re-employed immediately. The Company also confirmed that wherever
possible such a person would be accommodated in his old job.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
23rd November 1990 ---------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman