Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92587 Case Number: LCR13851 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LAKELANDS DAIRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of terms of L.C.R. 13701.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
together with their views expressed verbally makes the following
Recommendations.
A. From the date of acceptance of this Recommendation by both
parties the Society will concede the workers' claim under
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
B. The workers for their part will accept to balance concession
of the 3% on the following basis:-
(i) Clerical Staff: On implementation of this
Recommendation they agree to extend their working
week to 37.50 hours. The clerical pay scales will
be adjusted to take account of the extra hours
worked in addition to the 3%. Management may
reschedule the working week in the most
advantageous manner to maximise the use of the
extra hours available. The Court would expect
this facility to be used in a reasonable manner.
(ii) The Court does not accept the Society's proposal
to reduce holiday entitlement.
(iii) In relation to
Sunday hours
Saturday and Sunday Mealtime Payments
U.H.T. allowance
Shift allowance in the Mill
the Court accepts the arguments of the Society that this should
form part of the resolution of this claim under Clause 3.
However, the Court also believes that the compensation offered for
the withdrawal of these payments should be varied as follows:-
"Where employees lose amounts up to #500 per annum a lump sum
of #1,500 be paid".
"Where employees lose amounts up to #1,000 per annum a lump
sum of #3,000 be paid".
"Where employees lose amounts over #1,000 per annum a lump
sum of #4,000 be paid".
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92587 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13851
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: LAKELANDS DAIRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH CO-OPERATIVES
ORGANISATION SOCIETY LIMITED)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of terms of L.C.R.
13701.
BACKGROUND:
2. In L.C.R. 13701 dated 7th July, 1992 the Court investigated,
amongst other issues, a claim for 3% wage increase under Clause 3
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The
Court recommended as follows:-
"The Court considers that in the circumstances the parties
should enter immediately into negotiations on a reasonable
quid pro quo which would allow for payment of the 3%. The
Court will be available to assist the parties if they fail to
reach agreement".
3. Following the issue of the recommendation the parties met on
17th September, 1992 to discuss the issue of "reasonable quid pro
quo". In exchange for concession of the 3% increase under Clause
3 the Society sought the following:
(i) Sunday Bonus: in addition to overtime rates
being paid on Sundays worker's
receive a bonus of #11. The
Company is seeking the elimination
of this payment.
(ii) Saturday and Sunday
Meal breaks: at present workers are paid in
respect of their one hour meal
break. The Company is seeking the
discontinuation of this practice.
(iii) U.H.T. Allowance: A bonus of 6% is currently paid to
workers in this Unit. The Company
is seeking its cessation
(iv) Mill Shift Allowance: The Company is seeking to end
payment of a shift allowance to 3
employees who ceased working shift
in 1980.
(v) Holidays:- The Company wishes to reduce the
workers' current entitlement of 21
days annual leave to 20 days in
line with the norm prevailing in
the industry.
(vi) Clerical Staff: The Company wishes to increase the
working week of clerical staff
from 35 hours to 37.5 hours in
line with other Co-ops.
The above proposals would result in varying losses for different
groups of workers (details supplied to the Court). The Union
refused to address any of the above items as, in its view, each
one represented an easily identifiable loss for each group of
workers concerned.
4. The Union offered as a "quid pro quo" the following:
(i) re-affirmation of existing agreements,
(ii) a commitment to maintain time keeping,
(iii) a commitment to co-operate with on-going changes and new
technology.
The Society responded that these commitments were inadequate to
its requirements. As the parties could not agree on the issue of
"quid pro quo" the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation in accordance with L.C.R. 13701.
A Court hearing took place in Cavan on 23rd October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Society's proposals are unreasonable in that the value
of the concessions sought would be far greater than the 3%
wage increase and thus is in breach of the spirit of Clause 3
of P.E.S.P.
2. None of the other Co-operatives in the North East Region
have adopted a similar position to the Society.
3. The workers have already proved their dedication and
commitment to the Society over the years and in the Union's
view its proposals are a reasonable "quid pro quo" in return
for the 3% increase, particularly its commitment to
co-operation with ongoing change and new technology.
4. The Court is asked to recommend that the Union's position
is reasonable and to take into account the time span which has
elapsed since the claim was lodged when recommending on a date
for implementing the 3% wage increase.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Society outlined the difficulties facing it and the
agricultural industry at the previous Labour Court hearing.
The situation has disimproved since that time mainly due to
the sterling crisis (details supplied by the Court).
2. The Society is anxious to maintain its rates of pay on a
par with other good employments. For this reason it is
seeking a way to implement the 3% increase under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. on a self-financing basis.
3. The basis for the 3% payment offered by the Union does not
meet the requirements of P.E.S.P. in that payments have
already been made over and above National Agreements in return
for ongoing changes.
4. The payments which the Society is seeking to eliminate are
over and above the norm paid in the dairy industry for which
the Society receives no return. The Society has offered to
phase out payments where the loss is over #500 over a period
of time.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
together with their views expressed verbally makes the following
Recommendations.
A. From the date of acceptance of this Recommendation by both
parties the Society will concede the workers' claim under
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
B. The workers for their part will accept to balance concession
of the 3% on the following basis:-
(i) Clerical Staff: On implementation of this
Recommendation they agree to extend their working
week to 37.50 hours. The clerical pay scales will
be adjusted to take account of the extra hours
worked in addition to the 3%. Management may
reschedule the working week in the most
advantageous manner to maximise the use of the
extra hours available. The Court would expect
this facility to be used in a reasonable manner.
(ii) The Court does not accept the Society's proposal
to reduce holiday entitlement.
(iii) In relation to
Sunday hours
Saturday and Sunday Mealtime Payments
U.H.T. allowance
Shift allowance in the Mill
the Court accepts the arguments of the Society that this should
form part of the resolution of this claim under Clause 3.
However, the Court also believes that the compensation offered for
the withdrawal of these payments should be varied as follows:-
"Where employees lose amounts up to #500 per annum a lump sum
of #1,500 be paid".
"Where employees lose amounts up to #1,000 per annum a lump
sum of #3,000 be paid".
"Where employees lose amounts over #1,000 per annum a lump
sum of #4,000 be paid".
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
19th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.