Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92351 Case Number: LCR13689 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES' UNION |
Claim for improved pay package for the implementation of a new Company Agreement and dispute concerning a contractors clause.
Recommendation:
3. The first item in dispute which the Court was asked to address
was the wording in the proposed document entitled "The Four
Freedoms" in relation to contractors. The Court is of the view
that the Union request to have guarantees in relation to the use
of contractors is reasonable and accordingly recommends that the
Company include a sentence (which it has already included in the
detailed local clauses Appendix VII of the documentation) to the
effect that the appointment of contractors does not mean that the
Company will not fully utilise its own staff.
The further item in dispute relates to the amount of compensation
to be paid to staff on acceptance of the new Comprehensive
Agreement. The Court has examined the various claims from the
Union side and the Company's offer as set out in Appendix VIII of
the documentation submitted to the Court by the Company.
The Court considers that the Company's offer should be amended as
follows:-
Para 4 The amount of #4000 be increased to #8000.
Para 5 The amount of #500 be increased to #1000.
The Court recommends that the offer as amended be accepted by the
Union side.
The Unions also claimed an increase in service pay and a 5%
increase over and above the terms of P.E.S.P.
The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's proposal
to consolidate the existing service pay into the basic rate and
does not recommend concession of the claim for a further 5%
increase.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92351 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13689
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD GAIS EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for improved pay package for the implementation of a new
Company Agreement and dispute concerning a contractors clause.
BACKGROUND:
2. Dublin Gas went into receivership in 1986 and was acquired by
Bord Gais. At that time Dublin Gas had completed its conversion
from manufactured gas to natural gas.
3. There are three (3) major agreements in existence within Bord
Gais Dublin operations. These are the Comprehensive Work
Agreement 1981, the Viability Agreement 1986 (negotiated by the
Receiver) and the Contractors' Overtime Guarantee Agreement, 1987.
4. The Company now considers these agreements to be too
restrictive as they were negotiated at a time when business was
declining. This situation is now reversed and the Company in 1990
put forward proposals for a new comprehensive agreement, in line
with a Business Plan it had drawn up for the 1990's, in a document
entitled "The Way Forward" which seeks greater flexibility and
productivity from its workforce. The Company and Unions entered
into lengthy discussions on the proposed Comprehensive Agreement
The Unions are dissatisfied with the financial element of the
agreement and the clause on the use of contractors. The Unions
consider that the latter clause, in its present wording, would
give the right to the Company of unlimited use of contractors to
the detriment of the full-time workforce.
5. The Company gave assurances to the Unions that contractors
would be used only when needed and would not affect the jobs of
the workers. The Company's offer is as follows:
(1) Pay Increase: a 3% increase in accordance with Clause 3
of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.)
(2) Compensation in respect of loss of earnings arising
from loss of shift, roster or stand-by
allowance payable at five times the
agreed weekly loss X each year the rate
has been held, to a maximum of 5 years.
In applying the compensation formula to
the termination of the Agreement for the
Use of Period and other Contractors in
the Distribution Department dated 22nd
October, 1987, an average payment of
#4,000 will apply to all eligible
employees.
(3) Lump sum payment of #500 payable to all permanent
or long-term temporary employees with
more than two years continuous service on
the signing of the Agreement.
(4) Improvements in Pension Scheme for all permanent and
pensionable employees (details supplied
to the Court).
The Unions' claim was for a general wage increase of 5% over and
above the Company's offer of 3% and:-
- An increase in the lump sum from #500 to #2,000.
- An increase in the lump sum of #4,000 to workers in the
- Distribution Department to #8,000.
- An increase in the service pay from #1 per week to #5 per
week.
- Agreement on the use of contractors.
The Company rejected the Unions' claim but on the question of the
service pay it offered to consolidate the present payment into the
basic rate.
6. As no agreement was reached on these issues the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission in March, 1991. A
number of conciliation conferences were held between September,
1991 and June, 1992. The Commission, with the consent of the
parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 15th June, 1992. A Court
hearing took place on 17th June, 1992. The Court issued its
recommendation by letter dated 22nd June, 1992.
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Unions' claim is fully justified as the workers have
already contributed to the complete re-organisation of the
Company for no reward (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company is now profitable.
3. The proposed new agreement will require further major
commitments from the workforce.
4. No special increases have been received since 1983.
5. Service pay was introduced in 1963 and has remained
unaltered since.
6. Free use of contractors should not be conceded, in order
to maintain the security and quality of the workers' jobs.
A.G.E.M.O.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The workers have already contributed to two major
rationalisation plans and received no payment. The last
rationalisation plan involved 500 redundancies.
2. In seeking the termination of the Agreement for the use of
Period and other Contractors in the Distribution Department
the Company is eliminating 10 hours guaranteed overtime which
has been a feature in that Department for a number of years.
This overtime was introduced by the Company in return for the
use of contractors as a means of protecting the jobs of the
permanent staff. The Company's offer of compensation and
assurances regarding the use of contractors are inadequate.
3. The Company's offer of a 3% increase and #500 lump sum to
the entire staff is inadequate in view of the major
concessions and increased productivity sought.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The existing Agreements were brought in when the Company
was in decline. The position is now in reverse and a
different type of Agreement is needed. Under the Company's
Business Plan, targets and unit costs have been identified.
In order to attain these objectives the Company needs an
Agreement which will give it the freedom to adjust manning
levels, control overtime, introduce new methods and technology
and use contractors without penalty.
2. The Company has similar agreements in its other
operations.
3. The Company's offer is a total package and is fair and
reasonable in view of the concessions sought.
4. The percentage increase offer is the maximum allowable
under P.E.S.P.
5. The proposals sought are essential if the Company is to
consolidate and expand its position in a very competitive
market place thus securing jobs for all concerned for the
future.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The first item in dispute which the Court was asked to address
was the wording in the proposed document entitled "The Four
Freedoms" in relation to contractors. The Court is of the view
that the Union request to have guarantees in relation to the use
of contractors is reasonable and accordingly recommends that the
Company include a sentence (which it has already included in the
detailed local clauses Appendix VII of the documentation) to the
effect that the appointment of contractors does not mean that the
Company will not fully utilise its own staff.
The further item in dispute relates to the amount of compensation
to be paid to staff on acceptance of the new Comprehensive
Agreement. The Court has examined the various claims from the
Union side and the Company's offer as set out in Appendix VIII of
the documentation submitted to the Court by the Company.
The Court considers that the Company's offer should be amended as
follows:-
Para 4 The amount of #4000 be increased to #8000.
Para 5 The amount of #500 be increased to #1000.
The Court recommends that the offer as amended be accepted by the
Union side.
The Unions also claimed an increase in service pay and a 5%
increase over and above the terms of P.E.S.P.
The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's proposal
to consolidate the existing service pay into the basic rate and
does not recommend concession of the claim for a further 5%
increase.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
19th August, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.