Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94660 Case Number: ARB951 Section / Act: S70 Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Investigation arising from clause 5 of ARB190.
Recommendation:
In its consideration of this claim the Court had regard to (1) the
relevant clauses of the 1990 Comprehensive Agreement, (2) the
relevant Decisions/Recommendations that emerged from the Court as
a consequence of that Agreement, in particular clause 5 of
arbitration findings No. ARB190, and (3) the relevant clauses of
the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement as currently operating.
On the question of the pursuance of the claim the Court accepts
that notwithstanding the replacement of the 1990 Comprehensive
Agreement with the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement, clause 2.8 of
the latter agreement accepted the possibility of such an exercise,
on an exceptional basis.
Regarding the substantive issue of the claim, the Court, while
conscious of the fact that the question of compensation for loss
of overtime earnings for the period involved has been in
contention since 1990, considers that it is not an issue which can
be treated in isolation from subsequent developments within the
Company. These developments were of such a serious nature that
they eventually led to the formulation of the 1993 Cost
Improvement Agreement which has as its main objective the re-
securing of Waterford Crystal on a viable and competitive basis.
All concerned, including the Court, accept that the Agreement
involved the acceptance of severe changes in work practices and
reductions in earnings by all sections of the work-force.
However, it appears that these measures are now beginning to show
results.
What the Court had to consider was, should an understanding
reached within the context of a given set of circumstances be
upheld notwithstanding a rapid deterioration in those
circumstances, such deterioration in turn leading to severe cost
saving measures as detailed in the 1993 Cost Improvement
Agreement. On this point the Court finds that the 1993 Agreement
takes precedence over all previous agreements/understandings. The
Court also notes that, within the said Agreement, the only
specific compensatory clause relating to loss of overtime is in
regard to rostered overtime.
The Court took all of the foregoing points and the submissions
made at the hearing into account in endeavouring to reach a
conclusion on the issue in dispute and having done so finds:-
That it cannot recommend concession of the claim as made. It
does, however, recommend that, for the period in question wherever
a worker's earnings had shown a decrease of more than 15% during
that period, the Company should pay to that worker a sum equal to
the loss in excess of 15%. Any increments, pay rounds etc., which
may have been implemented during the period in question should be
disregarded in any calculations of the above formula.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94660 ARBITRATION NO. ARB195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 70, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES:
WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Investigation arising from clause 5 of ARB190.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Arbitration No. ARB190 was issued in August 1990 and
concerned 6 issues for binding arbitration including a
claim for compensation for a reduction in total earnings
resulting from the loss of regular overtime (general and
female sections). The Court decided as follows in
relation to this claim.
"As there will be overtime working whenever it is
essential for production purposes, it is impossible
to say now what if any loss will be incurred by the
claimants arising from the withdrawal of previous
regular overtime. In any event, it would not be
appropriate to isolate this particular element of
earnings from the total package. Neither would it
be appropriate to consider compensation in terms of
the formula which applied in the past.
However, as an objective of the agreement was to
ameliorate the effects of cost cutting on lower-
paid staff, the Court will review the average
earnings of the claimants for the year ending 31st
December, 1991 to establish the overall impact of
the withdrawal of regular overtime. The Court will
then determine, as an addendum to this decision,
whether any compensatory payment is justified".
2. On 27th January, 1992, the Union wrote to the Court
seeking a review of the issue in line with the Court's
Decision. On 13th February, 1992, the Court asked the
parties to jointly examine the earnings of the group
concerned to determine the impact of the loss of regular
overtime on total earnings. On the basis of the agreed
figures, the Court would consider how best to progress
its review.
3. On 20th October, 1994, the Union referred agreed figures
to the Court outlining the losses incurred by the
workers employed in the male and female sections for the
year to 31st December, 1991. The Court investigated the
dispute on 10th March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Court has already considered the merits of the
Union's claim for compensation for loss of overtime.
All that remains is for the Court to consider the
overall impact of the withdrawal of regular overtime.
The agreement of the figures was put in abeyance while
the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement was being
negotiated. It is appropriate that the claim should now
be reactivated while the Company is making a profit.
2. In 1990, the Company argued that the introduction of BSI
based performance systems would yield an increase in
earnings which would offset the loss of regular overtime
earnings. This has not happened and out of 135 workers,
75 workers show a loss in earnings over the review
period.
3. The Court's decision recognised the effect of a loss in
earnings on low paid workers. The review is being
conducted while the Company is making profits. The
Union is seeking compensation for loss of earnings for
75 workers over the period April 1991 to April 1992 on
the basis of actual loss multiplied by 156 weeks.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1990 Agreement did not materialise into a turnaround
in the Company's fortunes and a survival plan was drawn
up within 2 years culminating in the 1993 Cost
Improvement Agreement. It is important to appreciate
that other categories of worker suffered greater losses
without compensation in 1990 and greater losses again in
1993. The Union's claim cannot be considered in
isolation from the financial and operational changes for
all workers within the Company.
2. The 1990 Agreement was an integrated composite package
with many of the elements linked. Under the return to
work formula in 1990, it was clearly stated that the
Company's financial position precluded any further
amendments to the Comprehensive Agreement. This means
that this claim must be resolved at nil cost to the
Company.
3. The overtime for which compensation is sought was
production related and not rostered and thereby not
contractually binding for the Company (details
supplied). The Company has never conceded compensation
for loss of production overtime either in the 1990 or
1993 Agreements. Concession of the claim could give
rise to claims from groups of workers who were more
affected by the changes brought about by recent
agreements (details supplied).
DECISION:
In its consideration of this claim the Court had regard to (1) the
relevant clauses of the 1990 Comprehensive Agreement, (2) the
relevant Decisions/Recommendations that emerged from the Court as
a consequence of that Agreement, in particular clause 5 of
arbitration findings No. ARB190, and (3) the relevant clauses of
the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement as currently operating.
On the question of the pursuance of the claim the Court accepts
that notwithstanding the replacement of the 1990 Comprehensive
Agreement with the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement, clause 2.8 of
the latter agreement accepted the possibility of such an exercise,
on an exceptional basis.
Regarding the substantive issue of the claim, the Court, while
conscious of the fact that the question of compensation for loss
of overtime earnings for the period involved has been in
contention since 1990, considers that it is not an issue which can
be treated in isolation from subsequent developments within the
Company. These developments were of such a serious nature that
they eventually led to the formulation of the 1993 Cost
Improvement Agreement which has as its main objective the re-
securing of Waterford Crystal on a viable and competitive basis.
All concerned, including the Court, accept that the Agreement
involved the acceptance of severe changes in work practices and
reductions in earnings by all sections of the work-force.
However, it appears that these measures are now beginning to show
results.
What the Court had to consider was, should an understanding
reached within the context of a given set of circumstances be
upheld notwithstanding a rapid deterioration in those
circumstances, such deterioration in turn leading to severe cost
saving measures as detailed in the 1993 Cost Improvement
Agreement. On this point the Court finds that the 1993 Agreement
takes precedence over all previous agreements/understandings. The
Court also notes that, within the said Agreement, the only
specific compensatory clause relating to loss of overtime is in
regard to rostered overtime.
The Court took all of the foregoing points and the submissions
made at the hearing into account in endeavouring to reach a
conclusion on the issue in dispute and having done so finds:-
That it cannot recommend concession of the claim as made. It
does, however, recommend that, for the period in question wherever
a worker's earnings had shown a decrease of more than 15% during
that period, the Company should pay to that worker a sum equal to
the loss in excess of 15%. Any increments, pay rounds etc., which
may have been implemented during the period in question should be
disregarded in any calculations of the above formula.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr.
Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.