Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91321 Case Number: LCR13350 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COW AND GATE WEXFORD LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 115 workers for an improvement in wages and conditions.
Recommendation:
This Recommendation is to be found in the full document.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91321 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13350
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: COW AND GATE WEXFORD LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 115 workers for
an improvement in wages and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute could not be resolved at local level discussions
and was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court
in January, 1991. Conciliation conferences were held onthe 9th
January, 1991, 27th February, 1991, 26th March, 1991, 12th April,
1991, and 13th June, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation on the 19th June, 1991. A Court hearing was held
on the 27th June, 1991.
*RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court has given very careful consideration to the very
comprehensive submissions made by the parties. From the
information offered and the views expressed it would appear that
the fundamental issue which divides the parties is their approach
to a revised wage structure.
On the one hand the Unions seek to obtain an increase in earnings
by seeking parity with another Company whilst the Company for its
part seeks to change work structures which are over reliant on
shift work and overtime to maintain income levels.
A number of related but subsidiary issues together with
differences arising from a troubled relationship over the past
year have also been referred to the Court. It is the view of the
Court that it can best assist the parties by recommending a fair
and reasonable approach to establishment of a new structure, which
if accepted by both parties could also form the basis for
settlement of many if not all of the detailed issues, and it is
therefore on this question that the Court intends to concentrate
in the major part of this recommendation.
To comment in the first instance on the case made by the Unions in
support of their claim, the Court can find no justification
whatever for the proposal for parity with Wyeths. The claim is
not supported by any suggestion that at any stage any relationship
whatsoever existed between the firms or that the organisation of
the work or the workforce is in any way similar. The Court
therefore rejects the claim for parity. Furthermore the Court
does not accept the Unions' arguments that the level of wage
costs, however marginal, is a good basis for establishing a wage
rate. And finally when referring to the increased productivity of
the plant the Unions do appear to have ignored major capital
investment made during the period in question.
If however the Unions' approach is open to criticism so too is the
Employer's. Whilst clearly aware that the wage and shift
structure were such as to establish a vested interest in work
practices that mitigate against flexibility and efficiency of
plant operation and a totally unacceptable discrepancy in levels
of earnings as between various grades of staff, proposals for
compensation to those who would lose as a result of change - a
fairly large proportion of the total workforce - were to say the
least unrealistic, and apparently not very clearly thought
through.
Against this background, having regard to the aspirations of the
workforce, as to income levels and the requirements of the Company
for a stable and rational pay structure, and also having regard to
the agreement of both that neither can be achieved simply by
applying the terms of the P.E.S.P., the Court recommends that
problems related to changes proposed by management be dealt with
as follows:
In the first place losses of earnings arising from changed
work organisation must be considered. These losses derive
from two different sources, and required to be dealt with by
different means.
(A) Firstly there are specific and calculable losses, such
as loss or reduction of shift premium, differential,
or fixed and rostered overtime. Where losses of this
nature arise from changes in manning or work methods
the Court recommends that the loss to those concerned
be paid in the form of a lump sum compensation the
equivalent of 2 years of such loss, as and when they
occur.
(B) In the second place are losses related to earnings
deriving from casual and irregular overtime,
replacement of absentees etc, as well as other
unforeseeable elements in earnings which can arise
from the exigencies of any industrial operation. As
the Court understands the thrust of Management's
proposals it is their intention to organise matters so
as to reduce these earnings to a minimum. However for
certain groups of workers they appear to represent a
major element in their gross earnings. As other
elements of this Recommendation are intended to a
large degree to compensate for losses of this type and
in any case they are not accurately calculable the
Court recommends that on an individual level over the
period of the next three years the level of such
earnings should be maintained by the following means.
(1) The level of payment to be maintained should
be established by subtracting basic, bonus
and all regular and rostered payments, which
qualify for compensation under (A) above
from gross earnings for the year 1990.
(2) A similar calculation, using the same
formula for each of the three yers to which
this recommendation applies will establish
the differences in earnings to be dealt
with.
(3) The level of compensation due will consist
of the difference between the year in
question and 1990 less the increases payable
on basic and bonus recommended hereafter,
the accumulative total of such increases to
be used in the second and third year of
payment.
As well as compensation for possible losses as
recommended above the Court also recommends.
(C) the consolidation of shift handover and wash
down allowance on the terms proposed by
Management.
(D) that the Company should increase its proposed
bonus payments to £30 per week and to proceed
at once to agree formally with the Unions the
terms under which payment of the bonus is made.
(E) Finally the Court recommends that over and
above the terms of the P.E.S.P. for a period of
3 years transition the basic rates should be
increased by 3% per annum to facilitate the
Management changes in structures.
The Court recommends that using the above formula as the
foundation the parties should proceed to the detailed negotiations
for the changes in customs and work practices necessary for the
establishment of the new regime.
It would seem that further recommendations on a number of the
issues raised would not be appropriate at this stage until the
difficulties are considered by the parties in the light of the
approach proposed above, nor does the Court consider any distinct
claim by any particular group to warrant different treatment, at
this stage.
RECOMMENDATION:
This Recommendation is to be found in the full document.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
2nd August, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.