Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87759
Case Number: LCR11512
Section / Act: S67
Parties: R & H HALL LTD - and - ATGWU
|
Subject:
27th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that following a pay pause until 1st
December an increase of 3% be applied for a period of six months.
The Court also recommends, in the light of the discussions which
took place at the hearing of this case, that the parties engage in
negotiations to resolve current difficulties and preserve
employment.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87759 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11512
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11512
Parties: R & H HALL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. 27th wage round.
Background:
2. R & H Hall Limited operates a grain/animal feed terminal in
Waterford port and employs twenty four workers. The Union, on
behalf of seventeen workers, served a claim on the Company for a
27th wage round increase of ten per cent for twelve months
commencing 1st June, 1987, the previous round having expired on
31st May, 1987. The Company rejected this claim but offered to
consider an increase from 1st December, 1987 in line with the cost
of living and the financial viability of the terminal at that
time. This was not acceptable to the Union and as no agreement
could be reached the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No basis for a settlement could be
reached at a conciliation conference held on 28th August, 1987 and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court investigation into the dispute was held
in Waterford on 13th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company as a whole is in a good financial position
(details supplied to the Court). The Waterford
terminal is an integral part of a company which made
net profits of #15 million in the six years from 1980
to 1986.
(ii) The Company's attitude to this claim is unfair
especially as the Company refused to negotiate on
points raised in Labour Court Recommendation No. 10340.
(iii) Recent pay increases in the Company have been moderate.
Neither of the last two rounds contained a pay pause.
(iv) The Union would be prepared to accept a 6% increase
over 12 months with no pay pause.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Waterford terminal is loss making and, in purely
economic terms, cannot afford to pay an increase.
(b) The workforce has refused to agree necessary changes
which would allow a relatively painless solution to the
problems of the operation.
(c) The Company's ability and inclination to pay an
increase are very limited due to the present
circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that following a pay pause until 1st
December an increase of 3% be applied for a period of six months.
The Court also recommends, in the light of the discussions which
took place at the hearing of this case, that the parties engage in
negotiations to resolve current difficulties and preserve
employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th November, 1987 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman