Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90681 Case Number: LCR13204 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROADSTONE GROUP OF COMPANIES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the implementation of L.C.R. 13008 regarding a 4% wage increase for 80 clerical workers.
Recommendation:
8. The Union claim is a straight-forward relativity claim arising
out of the 26th round settlement (4%) in 1988 for Craft and
General Workers in the Company. The Union argues that the Court's
earlier recommendation (LCR11924) which stated that "increases
such as extended to others, involved changes in conditions that
would lead to a reduction in costs" was inaccurate and that there
were no conditions attached to the payment. The Union statement
that the Court recommendation set no new conditions to the payment
is correct but it ignores the fact that the basis of claim
advanced by the Craft and General Unions rested principally on
concessions already made to the Company. The Company has stated
that these concessions made the deal with the Craft and General
staff a self-financing one. It is the Court's view that there was
no inaccuracy in recommendation 11924 and that the implication in
it that the basis for concession of the Union's relativity claim
should be the negotiation of changes that would lead to cost
reductions was valid and continues to be valid.
In early 1989, the Company, at a Labour Court hearing, sought
radical changes in the application of over-time payments to
Clerical Staff. The proposal was rejected out of hand by the
Union. The Court recommended (LCR12316) that as a basis for
negotiation, the workers should compute the cash value of the loss
involved in conceding the claim and that the employer should then
put a realistic price on it. This approach was not accepted by
the Union but the Court notes that the micro-computer agreement
which confirmed the present arrangements on working hours and
overtime payments for all existing permanent clerical staff was
concluded notwithstanding LCR12316.
The Union re-instated its relativity claim of 4% in September,
1990 at the close of the P.N.R. and the Company countered by again
seeking revised payment arrangements. The Court, without being
judgmental on the merits of either claim, accepted the right of
the parties to submit them and recommended that they negotiate on
them. No progress was made in the negotiations and the issues
were re-submitted to the Court.
Having considered the situation at length, the Court remains of
the view that the only basis for concession of the Union claim is
the negotiation of changes that will lead to cost savings for the
Company. The Court is also of the view that because of the length
of time the overtime arrangements have been in place and because
of the recent history of negotiations and agreement concerning
them, it is perverse, in an industrial relations sense, for the
company to continue to seek the proposed changes as a quid pro quo
for concession of the Union claim. Accordingly the Court
recommends that the parties consider alternative cost saving
measures as a basis the for the Union claim.
Pending negotiation of such an agreement, the Court does not find
grounds for concession of the Union claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90681 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13204
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROADSTONE GROUP OF COMPANIES
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the implementation of L.C.R.
13008 regarding a 4% wage increase for 80 clerical workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986, the Companies sought changes in the conditions of
clerical workers prior to the payment of the 25th Round. The
matter was referred to the Labour Court and in LCR10597 the Court
recommended that the parties "should commence immediate
negotiations using all available information, to attempt to agree
changes in conditions which will reduce Companies' costs". The
Court also recommended that in the context of these negotiations
the Companies should concede salary adjustments similar to those
proposed for general workers. The Union rejected the Court's
Recommendation.
3. In 1987, the general workers following the issuing of LCR11556
received a 4% increase under the 26th Round. In early 1988, the
clerical workers sought a similar increase. On 8th February,
1988, the Company offered the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery on condition that the Union agree to negotiate changes
which would reduce costs as per LCR10597. The Union rejected the
offer and the issue was the subject of a Labour Court
investigation. The Court in LCR11924, said that "increases such
as those extended to other groups of workers in the Company
involved changes in conditions which would lead to reductions in
the Company's costs. Pending a mutually satisfactory outcome to
negotiations on such changes, the Court recommends that the
Company's offer of 8th February be accepted". The Union rejected
the Recommendation. However, following a conciliation conference
the Union wrote to the Company on 21st September, 1988 confirming
acceptance of the following proposals regarding the payment of
26th Round.
"(1) The Parties agree to forego the 4% under the 26th
Wage Round for the duration of the P.N.R. i.e.
1st October, 1987, to the 30th September, 1990.
(2) The Companies agree to the payment of the P.N.R.
on 1st October each year, i.e. 1987, 1988, 1989.
(3) The Parties agree to meet and discuss the
Companies aspiration toward a change in the
overtime arrangements. All other conditions of
employment will remain as they are at present for
existing employees for the duration of this
Agreement i.e. until the end of September, 1990.
(4) However, it is an expressed condition of this
Agreement that the change aspired to under (3)
above can only be achieved by mutual agreement
albeit after the use, where necessary, of the
full procedures under the Agreement".
4. Discussions took place between the parties on 14th October,
1988 and 9th and 23rd January, 1989, regarding the changes in
conditions sought by the Companies. However, no agreement could
be reached and the matter was once again referred to the Labour
Court for investigation. The Court in LCR12316 of 15th March,
1989, recommended as follows:-
"Having considered the submissions made by the parties,
the Court is of the opinion that arising largely out of
the experience of the parties during the recent
recession, too many extraneous factors have intervened
to allow an objective approach to negotiations. Whilst
of course the work force concerned are entitled to seek
re-assurances on their security of employment, on the
actual question at issue it seems to the Court that the
most likely hope of fruitful negotiations is if the
workers concerned compute the cash value of the loss
involved in conceding the employers claim and the
employers in turn put a realistic price on the
concession they seek.
The Court recommends that the parties try the above
approach in their negotiations on the matter."
5. In June, 1989, the parties concluded a Micro-Computers
Agreement on the introduction to and operation of micro-computers
by the clerical workers. Clause 4 of this Agreement stated:-
"Notwithstanding the Labour Court Recommendation No. 12316 the
existing arrangements on working hours and overtime payments will
continue to apply to all existing permanent clerical staff. It is
the intention of the parties to negotiate a replacement House
Agreement and nothing in this clause implies any commitment from
either party as to the content of such an agreement except in
respect of the permanent clerical staff in the employment prior to
the conclusion of such an Agreement". In May, 1990, the Union
lodged a claim for a replacement wage agreement as the P.N.R. was
due to expire in September, 1990. The Union claimed a 4% increase
from 1st October, 1990, to bring the clerical workers back in line
with the craft and general workers. The Companies rejected the
claim on the basis that the then existing Agreement did not expire
till 30th September, 1990, and that the Companies would require to
know what might arise out of any discussions on a new National
Wage Agreement. As agreement could not be reached the matter was
referred to the Labour Court. On 28th September, 1990 the Court
issued LCR13008 which stated as follows:-
"Having considered the submissions and arguments
presented by the parties at the hearing and in
subsequent correspondence, the Court is of the view
that both sides have adopted entrenched positions which
are inimical to good industrial relations and from
which a resolution of the present dispute is unlikely
to emerge. In the circumstances, the Court considers
it unlikely that genuine negotiations have in fact
taken place.
In the context of the Union letter of 21st September,
1988, it is quite legitimate for the Union to submit a
claim for 4%. It is equally legitimate for the Company
to seek changes in the overtime arrangements.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that these matters be
addressed by the parties in direct negotiations, having
regard to the present state of the business, the
requirement of competitiveness and the validity of
relativities. The Court further recommends that these
negotiations be completed by the end of mid-November,
1990 at the latest. The services of an Industrial
Relations Officer will be provided by the Court if
requested by the parties.
The parties accepted the offer of the assistance of any Industrial
Relations Officer and a conciliation conference was held on 8th
November, 1990. As no agreement could be reached the matter was
again referred back to the Labour Court. The Court investigated
the matter on 4th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Court in LCR13008 recognised that the Union's claim
for a 4% increase is legitimate under the agreement reached as
per the letter of 21st September, 1988. From as far back as
1972 all unionised workers in the Companies have received
identical cost of living adjustments. The only time the
clerical staff did not receive the same is under the 26th
Round.
6. 2. The Court in LCR11924 appears to have interpreted the
employers verbal submission as implying that the craft and
general workers made some concessions for their 4% increase
under the 26th Round. This is absolutely untrue. LCR11556
which recommended concession of the 4% increase made no such
preconditions. There is no justification in the clerical
staff being treated differently.
3. The issue raised by the Companies, for the first time,
during the last Court hearing and subsequently reflected in
LCR13008 is at variance with two specific agreements made with
the Union. Under the Micro-Computer Agreement all existing
staff hold the conditions they have on hours and overtime.
There can be no going back on that Agreement. All other
changes must be tabled in the context of a replacement House
Agreement. The Companies proposals, even if they were only to
apply to future staff, should be contained in their proposals
for a new House Agreement given that it was the Companies who
cancelled the original House Agreement.
4. In concluding the Micro-Computer Agreement which
included the working hours and overtime issue, the parties
were operating against the backdrop of the earlier agreement
on the P.N.R. which provided that any such changes could only
be by mutual agreement. The Companies are in breach of
agreements in both what they have tabled and in how they have
tabled it. There can be no change in the hours or overtime
arrangements for existing staff. That was the only benefit
derived from the Micro-Computer Agreement. If there are to be
any changes for future staff then they can only be discussed
in the context of a proposal for a new House Agreement.
5. The Union requests the Court to recommend that the
clerical staff be paid a 4% increase, effective from 1st
October, 1990, in line with the increase received by their
unionised colleagues under the 26th Round. The Union further
requests that the Companies honour the agreement on hours and
overtime for all existing staff.
COMPANIES ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. During the 1980's there have been dramatic changes in
the nature and structure of the industry. In addition, the
business has become more competitive and volatile. The
indications are that the business will decline in 1991, which
will result in an even more competitive situation. The
Companies must be competitive if they are to remain viable.
The Companies must not be prevented from taking the measures
necessary to achieve that objective.
7. 2. The earnings of clerical staff are high relative to the
earnings of other employees within the group of Companies.
(Details supplied to the Court). The earnings of many of the
clerical employees exceed those of executives and managers,
whose hours, duties and responsibilities are greater than
those of the clerical staff.
3. In recent years major changes have been achieved in
relation to craft and general employees. Privatisation and
contracting out of work has been extended by agreement to many
areas such as concrete production, block production,
quarrying, etc... Greater flexibility between skills has also
been achieved. These changes resulted in greater productivity
and efficiency effectively making the payment of the 4%
increase under the 26th Round to these employees
self-financing.
4. The market continues to be extremely competitive. The
Companies must be able to match competitors in every respect.
The terms and conditions of craft and general employees
compare with competitors, however, the terms and conditions of
clerical staff are way out of line with those of the
Companies' competitors. In fact some competitors many not
even employ clerical staff. Where they do employ clerical
staff, the terms and conditions are lower than those in the
Group. Wages of clerical staff in competitor companies range
from #7,500 to #10,000 per annum with a very few receiving
#12,000 per annum. This gives the competitors a #4,000/#5,000
advantage over the Group.
5. The Union must face up to this fact. To survive the
Companies must be able to compete. Inability to compete will
have long term implications for employment and the future of
the Companies. The Companies have tried to address this
problem in a reasonable and responsible manner. The Union has
rejected every effort. Clerical earnings are too high and
this must be addressed sooner or later. If the Companies
conceded this claim and if account is taken of its
repercussive effects it would cost in excess of #200,000.
Such a cost increase would continue into the future, making
administrative costs even more uncompetitive.
6. The Micro-Computer Agreement was specifically related to
the introduction of Micro-Computers. The purpose of that
Agreement was to allay any fears the clerical staff might have
in relation to the introduction of Micro Computers. A payment
of #250 was made for that agreement. The Companies accepted
that there would be no change in the conditions of employment
for the clerical staff arising out of that agreement, except
by mutual agreement. The agreement did not exclude the
Companies' right to seek the changes required in relation to
existing clerical staff. The agreement did not concede or
give any indication that the Companies would concede the 4%
claimed by the Union.
7. 7. The Union, despite successive Labour Court
Recommendations, is not prepared to accept or negotiate any
change in terms and conditions of clerical staff.
Consequently, the Companies have no alternative but to request
the Court to reject the Union's claim for a 4% increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Union claim is a straight-forward relativity claim arising
out of the 26th round settlement (4%) in 1988 for Craft and
General Workers in the Company. The Union argues that the Court's
earlier recommendation (LCR11924) which stated that "increases
such as extended to others, involved changes in conditions that
would lead to a reduction in costs" was inaccurate and that there
were no conditions attached to the payment. The Union statement
that the Court recommendation set no new conditions to the payment
is correct but it ignores the fact that the basis of claim
advanced by the Craft and General Unions rested principally on
concessions already made to the Company. The Company has stated
that these concessions made the deal with the Craft and General
staff a self-financing one. It is the Court's view that there was
no inaccuracy in recommendation 11924 and that the implication in
it that the basis for concession of the Union's relativity claim
should be the negotiation of changes that would lead to cost
reductions was valid and continues to be valid.
In early 1989, the Company, at a Labour Court hearing, sought
radical changes in the application of over-time payments to
Clerical Staff. The proposal was rejected out of hand by the
Union. The Court recommended (LCR12316) that as a basis for
negotiation, the workers should compute the cash value of the loss
involved in conceding the claim and that the employer should then
put a realistic price on it. This approach was not accepted by
the Union but the Court notes that the micro-computer agreement
which confirmed the present arrangements on working hours and
overtime payments for all existing permanent clerical staff was
concluded notwithstanding LCR12316.
The Union re-instated its relativity claim of 4% in September,
1990 at the close of the P.N.R. and the Company countered by again
seeking revised payment arrangements. The Court, without being
judgmental on the merits of either claim, accepted the right of
the parties to submit them and recommended that they negotiate on
them. No progress was made in the negotiations and the issues
were re-submitted to the Court.
Having considered the situation at length, the Court remains of
the view that the only basis for concession of the Union claim is
the negotiation of changes that will lead to cost savings for the
Company. The Court is also of the view that because of the length
of time the overtime arrangements have been in place and because
of the recent history of negotiations and agreement concerning
them, it is perverse, in an industrial relations sense, for the
company to continue to seek the proposed changes as a quid pro quo
for concession of the Union claim. Accordingly the Court
recommends that the parties consider alternative cost saving
measures as a basis the for the Union claim.
Pending negotiation of such an agreement, the Court does not find
grounds for concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
27th February, 1991 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman