Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9269 Case Number: LCR13747 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COW AND GATE WEXFORD LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE;ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Dispute concerning (A) Bonus (B) Compensation (C) Grading (D) Use of Contractors (E) Training Allowance (F) Standing in (G) Withdrawal from stores (H) Consolidation of the hand-over allowance for Laboratory Staff.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the several submissions made by the
parties.
In the light of the arguments put forward the Court is of the
opinion that no changes in the terms of bonus system as proposed
in Recommendation No. 13350 are presently warranted. Quite
specifically the Court does not recommend.
(a) Any change in the current system of bonus calculation or
the introduction of a pro rate scale of bonus payments
(b) Any change in the bonus target
(c) Any adjustment for downtime
(d) Any change in the base year
COMPENSATION
On the matter of compensation for losses arising out of the new
system the Court does not recommend annualisation to take
account of absenteeism or the exclusion of potential bonus
earnings from the calculation of such losses. Indeed this
suggestion seems to represent fundamental misunderstanding of
the principles which the Court was attempting to apply in
Recommendation No. 13350 and subsequent clarification.
GRADING ETC.
The Court further recommends that the issues of grading and
training allowance be dealt with under the terms of P.E.S.P. as
proposed by M.S.F.
STANDING IN
The Court notes the apparent agreement of the parties on the
question of supervisors "standing in".
WITHDRAWAL OF TOOLS
The Court recommends that the craftsmen withdraw their own parts
and tools from stores.
OVERTIME AND EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACTORS
Having considered the directly related questions of the payments
of overtime and the use of contractors the Court is conscious of
the serious danger to the future of the Company which arose from
past work practice. It can only now repeat what it stated in
its clarification of 27th September, 1991 last.
EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACTORS
The recommendation cannot be taken to imply an unfettered right
to the employment of sub-contractors by the Company. The use of
this facility should as always be subject to agreed principles
between the parties.
The Court would also point out that all relevant agreements or
practices which applied beforehand are subsumed by
Recommendation No. 13350 and therefore no longer apply.
The Court is conscious that the new system has only been in
operation for six or seven months and it would at this stage be
reluctant to make any recommendation which might lead to a
reversion to the previous overtime regime.
It does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions claim
but it does recommend that the Company examine the possibility
of introducing overtime payments in circumstances where the
overtime worked is clearly under managements control and is at
their behest.
Bonus 1st January, 1991 - 1st April, 1991
The Court is of the opinion that the terms of the Industrial
Relations Officers letter of 10th January, 1991 a lump sum
payment of £200 is payable without conditions and so recommends.
Bonus 1st April, 1991 - 29th September, 1991
The Court does not consider any payment is due for this period
and does not recommend concession of this claim.
LABORATORY STAFF
Having considered the additional information sought from and
provided by the parties it is the Court's understanding that the
Company quite exceptionally has eliminated shift work in this
grade. In these circumstances the payment of compensation for
loss of shift hand-over as provided by the Company is
appropriate and in accordance with the terms of the original
recommendation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9269 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13747
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: COW AND GATE WEXFORD LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (A) Bonus (B) Compensation (C) Grading
(D) Use of Contractors (E) Training Allowance (F) Standing in
(G) Withdrawal from stores (H) Consolidation of the hand-over
allowance for Laboratory Staff.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. In 1990 the Unions made a claim on behalf of approximately
115 workers for an improvement in wages and conditions. The
dispute was not resolved at local level discussions or at a
number of conciliation conferences held between January and
June, 1991. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court which
issued LCR13350 on 2nd August, 1991. This Recommendation was
later clarified by the Court in September, 1991. However the
parties were still unable to reach agreement on a number of
items which were referred back to the Labour Relations
Commission on 16th October, 1991. Conciliation conferences were
held on 4th December, 1991 and 17th December, 1991 at which no
agreement was reached and the items in dispute were referred on
28th January, 1992 to the Labour Court in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Labour
Court investigated the dispute on 6th May, 1992 (the earliest
date suitable to the parties).
DISPUTE A: BONUS:
BACKGROUND
3. 1. There are 3 issues in dispute in relation to the bonus
system:-
1. Bonus from 1st January, 1991 to 31st March, 1991
2. Bonus from 1st April, 1991 to 29th September, 1991
3. Bonus calculation
In relation to 1 and 2 above, when the Unions lodged the
claim in 1990 a conciliation conference was held on 9th
January, 1991 and the Industrial Relations Officer (I.R.O.)
issued the following settlement proposals on 10th January,
1991:-
"Further to the conciliation conference held on 9th
January, 1991 in the Talbot Hotel I wish to confirm the
settlement proposals agreed as follows:
1. The Company will extend the bonus introduced in 1990
up to 1st April, 1991 by a lump sum payment of £200
forthwith.
2. The 39 hour week will be implemented as outlined in
Clause (1) of the Company's document of 19/12/90 with
effect from 1st January, 1990.
3. It is accepted by both sides that negotiations on the
Union's claim for Wyeth pay scales and the Company's
agenda of 27th November, 1990 will not be affected in
any way by the current negotiations on a new national
agreement.
4. A lump sum of £300 gross will be paid to each employee
on acceptance of these proposals.
5. A series of conciliation conferences will be set up
between now and 31st March, 1991 to resolve outstanding
issues from local talks in November/December, 1990".
The bonus of £300 as per point 4 of the letter was paid but
the £200 as per point 1 was not paid. The Union claims the
£200 bonus should be paid and that a bonus should also be
paid for the period 1st April, 1991 to 29 September, 1991.
The Company rejects the claim.
In relation to bonus calculation the Union claims that the
bonus target should be reduced from 360 to 340 tonnes per
week and that allowance should be made for downtime. The
Company rejects the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The £200 as referred to in point 1 of the I.R.O.
proposals was not related to targets. The Company
subsequently indicated that it would not pay for a target
which it decided was not achieved. The £200 bonus should
be paid as agreed at conciliation talks.
2. In relation to bonus calculation the Unions argued in
their original submissions in 1991 that the new bonus
scheme should be calculated on the basis of 340 tonnes per
week. The Labour Court's clarification of LCR13350 stated
that the existing arrangements should be clarified and set
out in formal terms. The existing arrangements were 340
tonnes per week and should not be changed by the Company
without consultation. In calculating tonnage allowance
should be made for downtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In relation to the I.R.O. settlement proposals of 10th
January, 1991, the Company agreed to the existing
production bonus of £200 conditional on targets being met.
As the production targets were not achieved the £200 was
not paid.
2. In relation to the period April to September, 1991,
the Company rejects the claim for bonus payments. Payments
accruing from LCR13350 are due only from the date of
implementation i.e. 29th September, 1991.
3. In relation to bonus calculation the target of 360
tonnes has applied since 29th September, 1991. The Company
has put forward a very fair bonus structure in line with
LCR13350. The performance to date indicates that the bonus
structure is effective and achievable. As the bonus is a
team based factory side scheme, no allowance can be made
for downtime.
DISPUTE B: COMPENSATION:
BACKGROUND:
6. 1. In its submission to the clarification hearing of 27th
September, 1991 in respect of LCR13350 the Company detailed
a loss of earnings formula. The Court in its clarification
of 27th September, 1991 stated that "the Company's
interpretation of the method of calculation as set out in
the document is correct". The Company is using gross
earning in the 1990 tax year as the base year for its
calculations The Union claims that calculation should be
made on the basis of actual earnings.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company is using earnings in 1990 as the
determining factor for compensation. No allowance is being
made for absences during 1990 and the Company assumes that
a £30 bonus will be earned each week. It would be fairer
if calculations were made on the basis of actual earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has to establish a base year and LCR13350
states that it is "gross earnings for the year 1990". The
potential bonus of £30 per week must be included in the
calculation as an incentive to achieve production targets.
DISPUTE C. GRADING:
BACKGROUND:
9. 1. There are 3 grades of general operative. The Company
is seeking to abolish the top grade. The Union has no
objection to a reduction to 2 grades if the bottom grade is
abolished.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. In seeking to abolish the top grade the Company is in
effect rejecting the Labour Court Recommendation of three
grades. The Union has no objection to two grades if the
Company wish to abolish the bottom grade. There is nothing
to prevent dealing which the issue of grading under the
terms of P.E.S.P. which includes the 3% special increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The Company sees a real requirement for 2 grades of
general operative. The Company is wiling to deal with the
issue on a buy out basis i.e. 2 year compensation formula.
DISPUTE D: USE OF CONTRACTORS:
BACKGROUND:
12. 1. Contractors are used mainly in the maintenance
section where there has been a large reduction in overtime
working. The Union claims that craftworkers should be paid
for overtime worked (they are given flat rate plus time off
in lieu) and that contractors should not be used on
maintenance work in place of maintenance personnel. The
Company claims it has the right to employ contractors
in situations which would otherwise require overtime.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. In the Labour Court's clarification of 27th September,
1991 it stated that the Company does not have an unfettered
right to the use of sub-contractors and that this facility
should be the subject of agreed principles between the
parties. The Company has however refused to pay overtime
rates to day craftworkers who have to cover shifts. The
fact that craftworkers have to take time off in lieu of
overtime means that backlogs are building up. The Company
then use contractors to clear the backlog which is an abuse
of the facility. The Company has continued to assume the
absolute right to use contractors at will and have not
reached any agreement on this facility with the Unions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. The Court has already recognised that the main thrust
of the Company restructuring proposals was to eliminate
overtime. The Company has put a very generous package in
respect of the elimination of overtime in place and feels
it has the right to employ contractors in situations which
would otherwise require overtime.
DISPUTE E: TRAINING ALLOWANCE:
15. 1. Six workers get a training allowance. The Company
wants to buy this out. The Unions want the allowance
retained.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
16. 1. This issue could be the subject of discussion under
the P.E.S.P. special pay award.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
17. 1. The Company proposes to buy out the training allowance
of £10.20 per week presently being applied to 6 workers, on
the 2 year compensation formula.
DISPUTE F: STANDING IN:
BACKGROUND:
18. 1. In the past supervisors have found it necessary to
stand-in and help operators in certain circumstances The
Company wishes to maintain this practice. The Union has no
objections in certain circumstances.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
19. 1. The Union has no objections to supervisors standing in
for safety, in an emergency, or on an occasional basis for
operators. This does not extend to a supervisor doing the
job of an operator on a full shift thereby replacing an
operator.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
20. 1. It is not the Company's intention that supervisors
will become operators. However in certain circumstances
there is need for flexibility to allow supervisors to
stand-in and help operators.
DISPUTE G: WITHDRAWAL FROM STORES:
BACKGROUND:
21. 1. Craftsmen withdraw parts from stores outside 8.00a.m.
to 4.00p.m. on a Monday to Friday basis. The Company
claims that craftsmen should withdraw their own parts from
stores at all times. The Union claims that this system is
impractical.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
22. 1. To allow craftsmen to withdraw their own parts from
stores would create chaos and is impractical to operate.
It would make stock control impossible and the storeman
would then be held responsible for other people's faults.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
23. 1. The practice of craftsmen withdrawing their own parts
from stores reduces delays and allows the storeman to
devote himself to achieving proper stock control in the
maintenance store.
DISPUTE H: CONSOLIDATION OF THE HAND-OVER ALLOWANCE FOR
LABORATORY STAFF
BACKGROUND:
24. Following the issue of LCR13350 the Company applied the
following increases in the basic rates of pay for laboratory
staff:-
1.1.91 NEW BASE RATE
YEAR 1 180.04 200.00
YEAR 2 186.31 205.00
YEAR 3 192.58 210.00
YEAR 4 198.86 215.00
YEAR 5 205.11 220.00
YEAR 6 211.39 225.00
YEAR 7 218.36 230.00
YEAR 8 223.89 235.00
YEAR 9 230.18 240.00
YEAR 10 236.42 245.00
YEAR 11 242.72 250.00
YEAR 12 248.99 255.00
YEAR 13 255.25 260.00
YEAR 14 263.09 265.00
The structure in the laboratory prior to LCR13350 was 8 laboratory
technicians on 4 cycle shift and the rest of the staff on days.
In October, 1991 the Company revised the structure and eliminated
shift work for laboratory staff. The Company claims that the
laboratory staff have received their pay entitlements under
LCR13350. The Union claims that a one hour shift hand-over
payment should be consolidated into the basic rates.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
25. 1. The hand-over allowance has been incorporated into the
pay of the rest of the staff with increases of approximately
£14 on the basic rate. The laboratory staff have had
substantial increases at the bottom of the scale with only
minor increases at the top of the scale. As most of the
laboratory staff are at or near the top of the scale the
increase in the pay rates has been of minor benefit to them.
The laboratory staff should not be treated less favourably
than the rest of the staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
26. 1. In LCR13350 the Court recommended "the consolidation of
shift hand-over and wash down allowances on the terms
proposed by management." The terms proposed by management
covered the laboratory staff and their pay rates were
adjusted accordingly.
2. When the Company eliminated shift work the laboratory
staff concerned received compensation for loss of shift
premium etc. in accordance with the recommendation. The
Company has applied complied fully with the terms of LCR13350
in relation to the basic pay and compensation for laboratory
staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the several submissions made by the
parties.
In the light of the arguments put forward the Court is of the
opinion that no changes in the terms of bonus system as proposed
in Recommendation No. 13350 are presently warranted. Quite
specifically the Court does not recommend.
(a) Any change in the current system of bonus calculation or
the introduction of a pro rate scale of bonus payments
(b) Any change in the bonus target
(c) Any adjustment for downtime
(d) Any change in the base year
COMPENSATION
On the matter of compensation for losses arising out of the new
system the Court does not recommend annualisation to take
account of absenteeism or the exclusion of potential bonus
earnings from the calculation of such losses. Indeed this
suggestion seems to represent fundamental misunderstanding of
the principles which the Court was attempting to apply in
Recommendation No. 13350 and subsequent clarification.
GRADING ETC.
The Court further recommends that the issues of grading and
training allowance be dealt with under the terms of P.E.S.P. as
proposed by M.S.F.
STANDING IN
The Court notes the apparent agreement of the parties on the
question of supervisors "standing in".
WITHDRAWAL OF TOOLS
The Court recommends that the craftsmen withdraw their own parts
and tools from stores.
OVERTIME AND EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACTORS
Having considered the directly related questions of the payments
of overtime and the use of contractors the Court is conscious of
the serious danger to the future of the Company which arose from
past work practice. It can only now repeat what it stated in
its clarification of 27th September, 1991 last.
EMPLOYMENT OF CONTRACTORS
The recommendation cannot be taken to imply an unfettered right
to the employment of sub-contractors by the Company. The use of
this facility should as always be subject to agreed principles
between the parties.
The Court would also point out that all relevant agreements or
practices which applied beforehand are subsumed by
Recommendation No. 13350 and therefore no longer apply.
The Court is conscious that the new system has only been in
operation for six or seven months and it would at this stage be
reluctant to make any recommendation which might lead to a
reversion to the previous overtime regime.
It does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions claim
but it does recommend that the Company examine the possibility
of introducing overtime payments in circumstances where the
overtime worked is clearly under managements control and is at
their behest.
Bonus 1st January, 1991 - 1st April, 1991
The Court is of the opinion that the terms of the Industrial
Relations Officers letter of 10th January, 1991 a lump sum
payment of £200 is payable without conditions and so recommends.
Bonus 1st April, 1991 - 29th September, 1991
The Court does not consider any payment is due for this period
and does not recommend concession of this claim.
LABORATORY STAFF
Having considered the additional information sought from and
provided by the parties it is the Court's understanding that the
Company quite exceptionally has eliminated shift work in this
grade. In these circumstances the payment of compensation for
loss of shift hand-over as provided by the Company is
appropriate and in accordance with the terms of the original
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
25th August, 1992 -------------------------
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
Note:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary,