Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90540 Case Number: LCR13068 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OLIN CHEMICALS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a cost of living/wage increase on behalf of approximately 30 workers.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is of the view that the Company's offer of Phase III of the P.N.R.
from the 1st July, 1990 is reasonable in the circumstances and
should be accepted by the claimants.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90540 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13068
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OLIN CHEMICALS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a cost of living/wage increase on behalf of
approximately 30 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Swords, Co. Dublin. It is a
subsidiary of an American based company and manufactures fine
chemicals. Annual pay reviews are normally negotiated at local
level between the Company and the Union and usually follow the
general trend set in the chemical/pharmaceutical industry.
3. The Company entered into a two year pay agreement prior to the
signing of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). The
Agreement covered the period 1st July, 1987 to 30th June, 1989 and
provided for a 6% increase for 12 months followed by a 5% for 12
months. It also provided for co-operation for ongoing changes
etc. On the expiry of this Agreement in July, 1989 a further
agreement was entered into which provided for an increase equating
to that due under the P.N.R. plus an ex gratia holiday bonus of
one additional week's basic pay in return for co-operation
regarding productivity levels and the provision of cover.
4. On the expiry of this agreement the Union lodged a claim for:
1. Increase in basic pay rate linked to C.P.I.
2. 3% increase for use of V.D.U.
3. Recognition of service beyond 10 years.
4. Payment for annual leave at average earnings rate.
5. Shorter working week.
The Company offered Phase II of the P.N.R. This was rejected by
the Union as they considered the 1987-1989 agreement as Phase I
and II and that they had completed Phase III. The Company's
position was that it considered the 1989-1990 agreement to be
Phase I of the P.N.R. and that they were now entering Phase II.
However, the Company subsequently modified its position to
considering the present agreement as Phase III to allay the
Union's concern that it would not be entering this Phase until
1991. The Union rejected this position and the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 27th
July, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on 28th August,
1990. As no agreement was reached the parties consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 22nd October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the 1987-1989 agreement was negotiated the parties
were well aware of the terms of the P.N.R. and they felt free
to negotiate outside its terms. In 1989 the parties met to
negotiate a new agreement. Management stated that the terms
of the P.N.R. could not be exceeded for the year 1989-1990 but
that for the 1990-1991 negotiations there would be no
reference to the P.N.R. terms. Notwithstanding Management's
stated position for 1989-1990, terms in excess of the P.N.R.
were offered and accepted by the workers.
2. When the Union served its claim for the 1990-1991
agreement it was not surprised that the claim was not conceded
in full. However, the Union was shocked to learn that the
Company's refusal to negotiate seriously was on the grounds
that it was applying Phase II of the P.N.R. and that Phase III
would be applied for 1991-1992 which would leave this Company
way behind the norm in the pharmaceutical/chemical industry.
3. The parties entered into freely negotiated agreements over
the last number of years and there is no obligation under the
terms of the P.N.R. beyond June, 1990. The Court is
accordingly asked to recommend that the Company should
negotiate the Union's claim without any reference to the
P.N.R.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers have benefited from high pay increases in
1987/1988 and 1988/1989 because the pay deal was concluded
prior to the signing of the P.N.R. Almost all other companies
in the chemical/pharmaceutical industry received pay increases
averaging 2.5% per year for the same period.
2. The Company have made every effort to resolve the dispute
by offering to consider a current annual wage agreement phase
III rather than phase II of the PNR. Virtually all
chemical/pharmaceutical companies are currently in phase III
of the PNR and are paying an average of 2.5% on basic rates.
6. 3. The Union's claim is outrageous and could not possibly be
considered by a small Company who attempts to follow trends
set by the industry, but certainly is not in a position to set
trends.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is of the view that the Company's offer of Phase III of the P.N.R.
from the 1st July, 1990 is reasonable in the circumstances and
should be accepted by the claimants.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__29th__October,___1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman