Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9469 Case Number: LCR14545 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NORTON (WATERFORD) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the introduction of a Summer bonus.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and examined
the background to the claim the Court is of the view that a
reasonable resolution to the dispute is that the Company offer and
the Union accept a 15% increase in the existing Christmas bonus in
full and final settlement of the claim for a Summer bonus and that
the matter of staff participation in savings be reviewed in
January, 1995.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9469 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14545
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NORTON (WATERFORD) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the introduction of a Summer bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the IVAX Corporation, an American
based multi-national. The Norton (Waterford) operation
consists of an aerosol manufacturing plant (producing
asthmatic inhalers) a tablet manufacturing and tablet
packaging plant. It was established in 1988 and employs
approximately 200 workers.
The Union has for a number of years been pursuing a claim for
the introduction of a Summer bonus. At a conciliation
conference in 1992, under the Chairmanship of an Industrial
Relations Officer of the Labour Relations Commission,
concessions in relation to an attendance bonus, service pay
and service leave were made by the Company and it was agreed
that the claim for a Summer bonus along with a number of
other issues would be the subject of further negotiations at
local level. As no progress was made at local level the
dispute was referred back to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 16th November, 1993.
As no progress was made the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 1st February, 1994, in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place in Waterford on 12th July,
1994. (The first available date to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 26 of the Company/Union agreement signed in 1985,
contained a commitment to a Summer bonus. It was agreed
at that time to defer negotiations on the issue until
the Company's trading position improved.
2. In April, 1992, agreement proposals put forward
following a conciliation conference under the
Chairmanship of an Industrial Relations Officer and
accepted by the Company, contained a commitment from
both parties to engage in intensive discussions
regarding the Union's claim for a Summer bonus.
3. In July, 1992, the Union reluctantly accepted the
Company's request to defer its claim till the following
financial year to enable the Company allocate costing
for it.
4. The workers concerned are paid considerably less than
other workers in similar employment locally and
nationally.
5. The Company has benefited considerably from an agreement
under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P).
6. The Company has reneged on two specific agreements to
have meaningful negotiations on the introduction of a
Summer bonus A major issue now exists regarding the
Company's credibility. Good industrial relations can
only be preserved by the Company honouring its
commitments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At no stage was the Company committed to the payment of
a Summer bonus as it is not general practice in Irish
industry.
2. The Company pays extremely competitive rates of pay and
has an excellent benefits package.
3. The Union gained considerable increases under the
agreement of 1992. In addition to these the 3% increase
under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. was paid without any
demonstrable concessions from the Union.
4. The IVAX Corporation is not prepared to sustain further
increases over and above the national wage agreements.
5. The Union's claim is without justification and the
commitment to discuss a productivity bonus which was
made in the 1985 agreement has been fulfilled.
6. All increases under P.E.S.P. have been paid and the
Company has implemented the 2% increase under P.C.W.
7. The investment of IVAX which has created in excess of 70
new positions since 1992, demonstrates the Corporation's
commitment to Waterford but it is dependant on costs
being kept in line and competitiveness being retained.
The Union fails to understand that on-going increases
can only undermine, in the long term, security of
employment and further expansion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and examined
the background to the claim the Court is of the view that a
reasonable resolution to the dispute is that the Company offer and
the Union accept a 15% increase in the existing Christmas bonus in
full and final settlement of the claim for a Summer bonus and that
the matter of staff participation in savings be reviewed in
January, 1995.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.