FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHILTON ELECTRIC (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim by the Union for improvements in pay and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the Glen Dimplex Group and manufactures a range of electrical appliances mainly for export. It employs approximately 250 workers as light assembly operators. Their basic wage is £163.41 per week. A bonus scheme is also operated which yields between 7 -15% (£12 - £24). A number of workers are on plus payments of between 12.5% and 25% (chargehands and shift workers). The Union's claim is for a substantial increase in basic pay (in addition to Partnership 2000), the introduction of service pay and an examination of the bonus scheme. The Company rejected the claims on pay but was agreeable to have the bonus scheme studied. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 20th of October, 1999. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 2nd of November, 1999. A Court hearing was held on the 17th of November, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are poorly paid yet they are working in a Company which is very profitable. Their wage rates are out of line with industry rates obtaining in general throughout the region (details supplied to the Court). In may cases workers have to avail of Family Income Supplements to make do.
2. A large number of workers have long service in the employment and have given excellent co-operation/flexibility to the Company. It has benefited from their substantial contributions, however, financial recognition has not been given to workers.
3. It is totally unacceptable that workers should be expected to exist on such a low wage. National Agreements were entered into on the basis that all would benefit especially the lower paid. The workers should receive a substantial increase in basic pay to bring them in line with the industry and the application of service pay (as exists in its sister company Bitech).
4. Workers have sought the introduction of a profit share and share option scheme to no avail. Requests for discussions on forms of financial involvement have been met with flat rejection.
5. The bonus scheme was examined by the IPC in December, 1998 and the review has not been of any great assistance in improving the situation. The yield has always been unsatisfactory. While it is willing to become involved in a complete revision of the scheme, the Union feels that a further review would not be any more beneficial than previous ones.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has applied the full terms of Partnership 2000 including the local bargaining element and the final phase of the agreement will be paid on the 1st of December, 1999.
2. The Union's claim for a substantial pay increase is beyond the terms of Partnership 2000 and is in breach of this agreement, specifically Clause 6 which states that "it is agreed that no cost increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions, only those provided for (within the agreement) will be made or processed during the currency of the agreement". The agreement has been accepted by the Union and has been honoured by the Company. The Union's pay claim would increase labour rates by 16.7% and in turn cost the Company approximately £400,000 per year. This is a cost increase that cannot be passed on to its customers and in turn will threaten the Company's viability and its continued operation in Dunleer. The Company operates in an extremely competitive market where price concessions are required annually by large customers.
3. More immediately such an increase would threaten the transfer of fan heater production from AKO Ismet and EWT in Germany. The Dunleer company would, therefore, miss out on the opportunity to become the fan heater producer for the entire group which would further undermine Chilton Electric's position within the group.
4. Management has explained, however, that provided basic labour rates are not increased beyond Partnership 2000, the Company is prepared to consider a broad and transparent review of the existing bonus structure. Such a review should generate the opportunity for increased earnings and greater productivity levels. This in essence would resolve both parties concerns in a positive and constructive manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions finds that the claim for an increase in basic pay is in breach of Partnership 2000.
However, the Court notes the Company's willingness to enter into discussion in an imaginative way, to revamp the bonus scheme and recommends that these discussions commence immediately.
The Court notes that the Company has indicated that a review can be completed between two and four months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th November, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.