FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KAYFORM WOOLFSON (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is in the bedding manufacturing industry and has two plants, one in Kilcullen, Co Kildare and the other in Bluebell, Dublin 12. There are 146 operatives employed in the Company and all are members of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union. The claim is for euro 10.16 per hour for all operatives. The basic rate at the moment is euro 7.53. Custom and practice has been that the terms and conditions at both plants are dealt with separately. The Company and the Union have agreed on a once-off basis, to deal with both claims jointly.
The Union members decided to pursue the claim with the Company through all Industrial Relations procedures. The Company rejected the claim and the Union referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on the 2nd of October, 2001. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, on the 10th of October, 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of January, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current rate for a general operative commencing in construction is euro 11.47 per hour.
2. The wage rates in the Company have been low since its foundation.
3. This is an exceptional case and one which needs to be corrected without delay, despite the fact that the claim for euro 10.16 is in excess of the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
4. Low pay has been addressed in a wide range of companies during the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, and in each case the basic terms of the programme were exceeded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for an increase in the hourly rate of pay is clearly in breach of the terms of the current national wage agreement.
2. The Company are experiencing severe trading difficulties and have had to take drastic measures within the Group to offset adverse trading conditions and to protect against the continued expected downturn in its markets.
3. The Company have improved the bonus scheme and service pay schemes and also introduced a pension scheme.
4. If the claim is conceded, the cost to the Company would be in excess of euro 761,843 per annum exclusive of increased overtime costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company have pointed out that the claim as presented is precluded by the PPF. This is not disputed by the Union.
In these circumstances, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st January, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.