Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94119 Case Number: LCR14434 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNION |
Dispute concerning the non-payment of Christmas bonus to employees in receipt of disability payments and as provided by LCR13911.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the
oral agreements put forward in relation to this case. It was the
Court's intention in LCR13911 to cushion a loss of income incurred
by workers in 1993 as a result of the Cost Improvement agreement,
by an increased bonus for that year. Therefore, workers in
long-term disability were not included.
The Court notes that the Company undertakes to apply the bonus
increase to workers in long-term disability under the Irish Life
No. 2 fund and accepts that this is an equitable approach having
regard to the terms of that fund. A similar consideration does
not exist in relation to workers covered by the Irish Life No. 1
fund and the Court does not consider that there is a case for
their payment.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept the Company
position.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94119 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14434
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non-payment of Christmas bonus to
employees in receipt of disability payments and as provided
by LCR13911.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim submitted by the Union is in respect of the
payment of a special once-off additional bonus of #300
to employees who are out of work due to long-term
permanent disability. In 1988, the Norwich Union
Disability Scheme, which had been in existence since
1967, was discontinued. An agreement was reached
between the Company and Norwich Union to cover
liabilities for employees who were in receipt of benefit
under the scheme at the time it was discontinued. There
are 25 employees currently covered under the terms of
this scheme (Irish Life No. 1 Fund).
2. In 1989, a new disability scheme was agreed as part of
an overall agreement. This scheme was subsequently
amended under the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement and
there are 18 employees currently in receipt of benefit
from the new scheme (Irish Life No. 2 Fund). In
Recommendation LCR 13911 the Court recommended that, on
a once-off basis, for 1993 the Company should make an
additional payment of #300 to bring the annual bonus in
1993 to #800 per person. The payment of the annual
bonus to employees on disability is calculated on the
basis of two and a half times the weekly rate of
disability benefit up to a maximum of #500. The annual
bonus was paid in 1993 to all employees, including those
on disability. However, the Company would not pay the
additional #300 recommended by the Court to those
currently in receipt of disability benefit. The claim
concerns the 25 employees covered under the Norwich
Union Scheme (Irish Life No. 1 Fund).
3. Agreement could not be reached and the issue was
referred by the Union, with the Company's agreement, to
the Labour Court under Section 20(2) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the matter
on 12th April, 1994 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The benefits paid to employees from the Norwich Union
Scheme are based on two thirds of the average earnings
prior to disability. A 10% escalator clause (5% from
Norwich Union and 5% from the company) was deleted in
the 1989 Agreement. The effect of this means that
employees in the Norwich Union Scheme have been at the
loss of a 10% pay increase for each year since 1989.
2. The argument by the Company that these employees are
better off than those covered under the new scheme is
unacceptable. Regardless of which scheme employees are
receiving benefit from, they should not be treated any
differently regarding this once-off additional payment.
3. All employees within the Company have experienced
different levels of pay cuts including those employees
on disability. The Court did not make recommendations
based on the different levels of wage reductions
experienced by employees, but made a general
recommendation for a once-off payment. This was
accepted by the workforce as being across the board and
covering all employees including those on disability.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the Cost Improvement Agreement of 4th January,
1993, all employees who have been at work from the date
of its implementation, 18th January, 1993, have had
reductions in their rates of pay in addition to loss of
annual leave, service leave, service pay, and many other
reductions in benefits. Those workers on disability
have suffered no such reductions during 1993.
2. The Company acknowledges the future impact of the Cost
Improvement Agreement on the 18 employees affected by
Clause 2.7 of the Cost Improvement Agreement 1993. In
two years time their current benefits will be reduced by
one third and following a further two year period they
will be going on ill-health early retirement. They will
be making a contribution to the survival of the Company
unlike the 25 employees who have suffered no reduction
in payments to date and will not suffer any reductions
in the future under the 1993 Agreement.
3. Payment of the once-off sum of #300 gross to the 25
employees not affected by the reductions would be
contrary to the Labour Court's Recommendation and would
establish a precedent which would have knock-on effects
and costs which would be damaging to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the
oral agreements put forward in relation to this case. It was the
Court's intention in LCR13911 to cushion a loss of income incurred
by workers in 1993 as a result of the Cost Improvement agreement,
by an increased bonus for that year. Therefore, workers in
long-term disability were not included.
The Court notes that the Company undertakes to apply the bonus
increase to workers in long-term disability under the Irish Life
No. 2 fund and accepts that this is an equitable approach having
regard to the terms of that fund. A similar consideration does
not exist in relation to workers covered by the Irish Life No. 1
fund and the Court does not consider that there is a case for
their payment.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept the Company
position.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th May, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./M.M. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.