Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94259 Case Number: LCR14571 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FRUIT OF THE LOOM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for pay increase for warehouse staff.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that it would not be justified in recommending concession
of the claim.
The Court, however, does consider that there might well be
positive advantages in the long term, for both sides, in
introducing a bonus incentive scheme specific to the warehouse
area. The Court, accordingly, urges the parties to initiate local
discussion on this matter.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94259 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14571
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FRUIT OF THE LOOM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for pay increase for warehouse staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of T-Shirts/
Sweatshirts for supply to the European market. It employs
approximately 2,200 workers at five plants in County Donegal.
The dispute before the Court arises from the introduction in
September 1993 of a new carousel system for making boxes in
the warehouse. It replaces a previous system where the boxes
came down a straight conveyer and allows for a greater
throughput of items. The Union claims the increase in volume
is approximately 33%.
The rate of pay for the warehouse staff is #175.26 which is
an enhanced rate of pay to take account of the fact that
there is no bonus system in operation in the warehouse. In
October, 1993, the Union submitted a claim for an increase in
pay on behalf of the workers concerned to compensate for the
increase in throughput. It sought either the equivalent of
100% performance (#200.84) or a measured group bonus scheme
with the existing rate as fall-back. The Company rejected
the claim. Local-level discussions took place but no
agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place in February, 1994 but no
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred by the
Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 4th May,
1994 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Donegal on 15th
September, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are paid considerably less than
comparable workers in the Company and have few
opportunities to increase their normal earnings.
2. The Company's contention that the rates of pay of
warehouse staff cannot be adjusted regardless of the
increase in the volume of work is unacceptable to the
workers.
3. The workers concerned have substantially increased
throughput/productivity in the warehouse. In the
circumstances it is an established and accepted concept
for the workers to share in the savings accruing to the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Productivity and throughput are quite distinct elements
and there is no evidence that individual productivity
has increased beyond that which would be considered as
more than a reasonable day's work. The Union has sought
to rely solely on the previous levels of throughput as
justification for their claim while ignoring the
improvements brought about by the carousel system.
Under the revised system the Company has deployed 9
workers rather than previously utilising 6 fully (with
the other 3 on an "as need basis"). Currently a total
of 34 workers are employed in the warehouse who are
flexible and interchangeable.
2. The Union's claim is contrary to the terms of both the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
3. It is the Company's understanding that the increase of
#12 afforded to warehouse staff in 1988 was in
recognition of the fact that their rate of pay would not
be based on or tied to incentive earnings.
4. The Company accepts that there has been an increase in
throughput, but this has been made possible by the
Company's investment in modern equipment which has made
the work of those directly involved easier.
5. The claimants' rate of pay applies to approximately 83
workers in different departments. In the circumstances
concession of the Union's claim would have serious
consequences for the Company's pay structure.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that it would not be justified in recommending concession
of the claim.
The Court, however, does consider that there might well be
positive advantages in the long term, for both sides, in
introducing a bonus incentive scheme specific to the warehouse
area. The Court, accordingly, urges the parties to initiate local
discussion on this matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th October, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.