Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91499 Case Number: LCR13503 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CADBURY IRELAND PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for the introduction of cashless pay.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is not satisfied that the Union's case for an ongoing
payment for the introduction of cashless pay is sustained.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim but does recommend that the Company's offer of a once off
lump sum be increased to the amount of £150 and subject to the
proviso that a further claim may be entered in the event of the
Dublin factory settling a similar claim for more favourable terms.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91499 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13503
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND PLC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for the introduction of
cashless pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns workers who are employed at the Company's
plant in Rathmore, Co. Kerry. Cashless pay was introduced for
them in 1978 following an armed robbery at the factory. It was
anticipated at that time that cashless pay would also be
introduced at the Company's Dublin plant and that compensation
would be paid to the Rathmore workers on the same basis as Dublin.
However no agreement has been reached with the Dublin workers and
the Union is now claiming compensation on behalf of the workers
concerned (in Kerry) in the amount of one hours' pay per week.
The Company offered a once off lump sum payment of £75.00 per
worker. This offer was rejected by the Union. The issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th May, 1991.
A conciliation conference was held on the 28th August, 1991 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 12th September,
1991. The Court investigated the dispute in Killarney on the 4th
December, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The Union is pursuing this claim because the workers
concerned have continued to accept cashless pay for thirteen
years while workers at the Company's Dublin plant are still
paid in cash. The payment of wages to the workers by any
method other than cash is very inconvenient for them. The
nearest regular banking service is either in Millstreet or
Killarney. The service in Rathmore is very limited, and the
nearest A.T.M.s are in Killarney. The Union sought a return
to payment by cash earlier in 1991 but the Company has refused
this request. Its offer of a £75.00 lump sum payment is not
acceptable considering the ongoing inconvenience to the
workers concerned. There are a significant number of
precedents for an ongoing payment in return for workers'
acceptance of cashless pay (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer represents a reasonable one in view of
the general level of compensation paid. In a similar claim in
May, 1990 the Court recommended £75 compensation per worker.
(L.C.R. 12782 refers).
2. The Company, in the light of its commitment to all groups,
must view this claim in the context of total numbers employed.
Concession of the claim would represent an increase of over 2%
in wage rates in Rathmore and ultimately in wage rates
throughout the Company affecting approximately 1,400 workers.
3. The Company is at an acknowledged cost disadvantage in
relation to competitors. It is involved in an investment
programme to renew and update its plant. It cannot sustain
any additional costs, particularly an ongoing cost of the
magnitude sought by the Union.
4. The Company is not trying to achieve competitiveness at
the expense of diluting the conditions of the workers
concerned. Current rates of pay in the Company rank with the
best available in the confectionary industry. Management
feels that its offer is fair and reasonable and asks the Court
to endorse this position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is not satisfied that the Union's case for an ongoing
payment for the introduction of cashless pay is sustained.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's
claim but does recommend that the Company's offer of a once off
lump sum be increased to the amount of £150 and subject to the
proviso that a further claim may be entered in the event of the
Dublin factory settling a similar claim for more favourable terms.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
17th December, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.