Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90658 Case Number: LCR13267 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CAMPUS OIL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of two clerical workers concerning the consolidation of the annual bonus in their pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered at length the history, nature and
complications of the pay situation of the claimants. Having
regard to all the circumstances, the Court recommends as follows:-
(a) That the claimants accept the percentage salary
increase proposed by the Company.
(b) That the claimants accept the pension arrangements
proposed by the Company.
(c) That the Company consolidate #2,880 instead of the
proposed #1,872 in the salaries of the claimants.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90658 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13267
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: CAMPUS OIL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of two clerical workers
concerning the consolidation of the annual bonus in their pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company recently concluded an agreement with its operators
and drivers for the consolidation of an annual bonus into basic
pay and a wage increase of 4%. The Company offered the same
arrangement to the two clerical staff but with a 5% wage increase.
This would result in the following new wage rates:-
WORKER A #11,724 plus 5% = #12,310
plus value of bonus = # 1,872
----------
#14,182
WORKER B #15,321 plus 5% = #16,087
plus value of bonus = # 1,872
-----------
#17,959
The Union indicated that the 5% wage increase was acceptable. The
Union claimed that since only the nett value of the bonus was
being added to their wages there should be two separate increases
of #1,872 each, applied on 1st April, 1990 and 1991. The Company
rejected the Union's proposal. As agreement could not be reached
locally, the matter was referred on 9th July, 1990, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be
reached at a conciliation conference held on 7th November, 1990.
The matter was referred on 9th November, 1990, to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 26th February, 1991 in Wexford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has argued that the clerical staff should
accept the proposals because the other categories of staff
have accepted them. The operators and drivers accepted the
Company's proposals at local level and have since regretted
their decision. At the time of acceptance they may have been
blinded by the fact that their overtime earnings are close
enough to their basic wage and because they have a monthly
lunch allowance of #187.20.
2. There are two types of annual bonus payments in
existence in the Company. One is a discretionary Christmas
bonus, the other is the annual bonus hereconcerned. In.
LCR9623 of 1985, the Company submitted that this payment is
part of the wage and could not be construed as bonus payment.
By the Company's own submission this after tax payment of
#1,872 is part of the wage and to incorporate it into the
salary as a gross figure is a very serious reduction in real
income and represents a wage cut. (Details provided to the
Court).
3. In an effort to resolve the dispute the Union is
prepared to extend the application of the phasing of two
separate payments of #1,872. These payments to be made
between now and March, 1992, to ensure that their income is
both protected and maintained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a small oil firm with a very small share
of the market and in order to remain in business it must be
competitive. The decrease in the consumption of oil over the
last few years and the reduction in margins have put the
Company under severe pressure to retain existing business and
attract new business. Unlike competitors, the majority of the
Company's through-put is heavy fuel oils which are less
profitable than petrol. There has also been a drop in the
Company's sales of oil and substantial ongoing losses for the
last three years. The Company's survival depends on cost
efficiency and the Union's claim which represents additional
cost increases cannot be justified in these circumstances.
2. The Company's offer of #1,872 consolidated into salary
plus a 5% wage increase is a significant ongoing cost to the
Company. As well as this the Company has agreed to the
inclusion of both workers in the death in service and pension
scheme which represents an incremental cost of approximately
#1,900 net to the Company. The two workers are on salaries
which are significantly higher than those in comparative
employment in the region.
3. The increases offered by the Company represent an
increase of 22.97% for worker A and 17.2% for worker B. The
Union is claiming increases of 36.9% and 29.4% respectively.
This is totally unreasonable and could not under any
circumstances be afforded.
4. The annual cash payment which evolved since 1985 was
paid at the Company's discretion and was never intended to
become part of the salary structure.
5. All other workers in the Company have accepted the
Company's offer which has been implemented since April, 1990.
There would be serious knock-on effects should this claim be
conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered at length the history, nature and
complications of the pay situation of the claimants. Having
regard to all the circumstances, the Court recommends as follows:-
(a) That the claimants accept the percentage salary
increase proposed by the Company.
(b) That the claimants accept the pension arrangements
proposed by the Company.
(c) That the Company consolidate #2,880 instead of the
proposed #1,872 in the salaries of the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
2nd May, 1991 ------------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman