Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91183 Case Number: LCR13320 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: HARP TEXTILES LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union for an increase in basic rates of pay for 3 maintenance craftsmen and a supervisor.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties.
The Company is party to the Woollen and Worsted Industry J.I.C.
The agreements for the Industry are negotiated at Joint Industrial
Council level and include rates of pay for maintenance staff. The
staff concerned in this claim are covered by the agreement and
accordingly the Court does not find grounds for concession of the
claim. The Court notes N.E.E.T.U. are not party to the Industry
negotiations. It appears to the Court that the Union might
consider discussing with the employee representatives on the
J.I.C. the question of representation at negotiations.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91183 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13320
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: HARP TEXTILES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an increase in basic rates of pay for 3
maintenance craftsmen and a supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. In September, 1990 the Union submitted a formal claim for an
increase in basic pay for the 4 workers concerned. At that time
the basic rate of pay in the Company for a maintenance craftsman
was #164.80 per week and #205 per week for the supervisor. The
Union claims that the rates of pay for the workers concerned
should be brought into line with the national minimum rate for
craftsmen (quantified as #176 per week by the Union) with a pro
rata increase for the supervisor. The Company rejected the claim.
No agreement could be reached at local level discussions and the
dispute was referred on 10th December, 1990 to the then
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 20th February, 1991 at which no agreement
was reached. On 26th March, 1991 the Labour Relations Commission,
having considered the dispute and formed the view that no further
effort on its part would resolve it, referred the dispute to the
Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute in Portlaoise on 7th May, 1991 (the earliest date suitable
to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the years the rates of pay of the workers concerned
have been falling behind rates in industry generally. The
workers have exercised pay restraint because of the Company's
problems in the marketplace. However if this trend continues
the difference between pay rates in the Company and in
industry generally will be so great that it will be impossible
to retrieve.
2. Other companies in the industry which are experiencing
problems similar or even worse than those being experienced by
the Company have much higher basic rates of pay (details
supplied to the Court).
3. The Union is not party to the Joint Industrial Council
(J.I.C.) for the Woollen and Worsted Industry. The Union's
policy of the minimum rate for craftsmen, while not binding,
now stands at #183.00 per week. The workers concerned seldom
receive overtime and their present basic salary is their only
form of income.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rates of pay for all grades including maintenance
employees have historically been linked to the J.I.C. for the
Woollen and Worsted Industry. For the past fifteen years and
more the Company has applied the terms of the Woollen and
Worsted J.I.C. to all grades, groups and categories covered by
its terms. It is clear that maintenance craftsmen are covered
in the highest category Grade 1, and in all that time no
objection was raised to its application to maintenance or
other employees.
2. The J.I.C. is the appropriate forum to establish both the
rates of pay and the increases to be granted in the Company as
part of the Woollen and Worsted Industry. The Company cannot
accept that because a Union does not attend the J.I.C. its
members are therefore not covered by the J.I.C. rates.
3. Despite very difficult trading circumstances, a
significant number of redundancies, long periods of short time
working etc., the Company has applied on an annual basis the
terms of the J.I.C. It should be noted that in recent years
the J.I.C. has adopted the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery and indeed the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress. It should be remembered that both of these national
agreements contain clauses relating to cost increasing claims.
4. The Company does not accept that the list of comparators
quoted by the Union is appropriate. While the Company has
applied the increases granted under the J.I.C. the basic rates
of pay in the Company are in excess of the minimum rates set
by the J.I.C. e.g. the Company rate was #164.80 per week when
the J.I.C. minimum rate was #121.64. It is fair and
reasonable to apply the increases provided for in the J.I.C.
on an annual basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties.
The Company is party to the Woollen and Worsted Industry J.I.C.
The agreements for the Industry are negotiated at Joint Industrial
Council level and include rates of pay for maintenance staff. The
staff concerned in this claim are covered by the agreement and
accordingly the Court does not find grounds for concession of the
claim. The Court notes N.E.E.T.U. are not party to the Industry
negotiations. It appears to the Court that the Union might
consider discussing with the employee representatives on the
J.I.C. the question of representation at negotiations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
18th June, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.