Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92578 Case Number: LCR13807 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH SUGAR GROUP OF COMPANIES - and - CRAFT GROUP UNIONS |
Claim by the Group for the restoration of analogues.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that any committment to maintain external
relativities in the form of an analogue was formally terminated in
1985. None of the arguments relating to the change in the
Company or organisation, its prosperity, or status warrant the
revival of this system of comparisons. The Court further is of
the opinion that concession of the claim would be in breach of the
terms of the P.E.S.P.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92578 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13807
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH SUGAR GROUP OF COMPANIES
and
CRAFT GROUP UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Group for the restoration of analogues.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 126 craftsmen and 67 apprentices employed at the
Companies' plants throughout the country. They are paid in
accordance with a ten year salary scale and workers with long
service receive service pay (details supplied to the Court).
3. In 1977 an agreement was reached on analogues whereby Irish
Sugar Company craftsmen were linked, for pay purposes, with
craftsmen in other large public sector employments. The Labour
Court endorsed this position in a number of Labour Court
Recommendations. In L.C.R. 10286 dated 5th February, 1986, the
Court recommended that in view of the losses sustained by the
Companies the agreement on analogues should be discontinued but
the Unions could cite the pay rates of other craftsmen in similar
employments when pursuing pay claims in the future.
4. In L.C.R. 11414 the Court investigated a claim under the 26th
wage round, a review of rates in comparable companies, and a wage
increase. The Court recommended an increase under the 26th wage
round and did not recommend concession of the other items at that
time.
5. Following the privatisation of the Companies in 1991 the
Unions lodged a claim for the restoration of relativities with the
appropriate analogue Companies. The Companies rejected the
claim and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on 27th February, 1992. A conciliation conference was
held on 31st March, 1992. In September, 1992 the parties
requested a referral to the Labour Court and on 21st September,
the Commission referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on
30th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The rates of pay of craftsmen have historically been
determined by comparison with a list of eight other commercial
public companies and serious anomalies now exist (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The agreement on privatisation provided that historical
wage bargaining procedures would remain in place.
3. Since 1979 the number of craftsmen employed has reduced
from 400 to less than 150, two Sugar Plants have closed down,
yet output has increased.
4. The Companies are now highly profitable (details supplied
to the Court).
5. The Companies argue that they are stand alone operations
in the private sector. Therefore, in the Unions' view, a more
correct comparison for pay purposes would be with companies
who operate in the food, drinks and tobacco industries.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. A substantial part of the Sugar Company problem was caused
by paying rates generated by external league tables which were
in no way related to the Company's business. These
relativities have been terminated for all categories of staff.
2. The Companies are operating in a highly competitive market
and must maintain efficiency and contain costs in order to
survive.
3. The Companies have come from long years of substantial
losses into profit but the levels currently attained must be
improved upon if the core business is to fund its capital
programme.
4. The Unions' claim is cost increasing and is therefore
prohibited under Clause 5 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that any committment to maintain external
relativities in the form of an analogue was formally terminated in
1985. None of the arguments relating to the change in the
Company or organisation, its prosperity, or status warrant the
revival of this system of comparisons. The Court further is of
the opinion that concession of the claim would be in breach of the
terms of the P.E.S.P.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions'
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
27th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.