Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD86914
Case Number: LCR10932
Section / Act: S67
Parties: MURPHY'S BREWERY - and - ITGWU
|
Subject:
Claim on behalf of 12 permanent drivers and temporary employees at the Dublin distribution depot for the inclusion of all hours worked in the bonus scheme.
Recommendation:
5. Taking into account the considerable delay which has occurred
since the conciliation conference of November, 1985, the Court
recommends that the Union's proposal be applied for the six month
period 1st October, 1986, to 31st March, 1987, to enable a further
attempt to identify differences which exist between the Cork and
Dublin operations which might justify a different scheme or
differing rates in the two areas. In so recommending, the Court
is making no comment on the desirability of any particular scheme,
but is noting that both sides have agreed in their working
agreement, signed in 1983, that amongst other matters, bonus
schemes such as this were to be reviewed.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86914 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10932
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10932
PARTIES: MURPHY'S BREWERY IRELAND LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 12 permanent drivers and temporary
employees at the Dublin distribution depot for the inclusion of
all hours worked in the bonus scheme.
Background:
2. The distribution workers are currently paid a fixed
bonus payment for forty hours work adjusted only by cost of living
increases. Overtime hours, kegs delivered or miles driven do not
earn a bonus payment. In May, 1985, the Union served a claim for
the inclusion of the overtime hours in the bonus scheme. The
Company was not prepared to extend the scheme on the basis that
the bonus is paid irrespective of the number of kegs delivered and
they saw no reason in extending the illogicality to overtime
hours. Local level negotiations failed to resolve the issue and
on the 22nd April, 1985, the matter was referred to the
conciliation services of the Labour Court.
A conciliation conference took place on the 5th November, 1985, at
which the Company indicated that a measured scheme operated in the
Cork area and it was hoped to develop a similar scheme for Dublin.
The Company agreed to have a scheme for discussion within the 1st
quarter of 1986.
Proposals were presented in March, 1986, to introduce the same
scheme to that which operates in Cork. A number of local level
meetings took place subsequently, but the parties failed to reach
agreement on the scheme. The Union reverted to its original claim
of inclusion of overtime hours in the fixed bonus scheme and on
the 24th November, 1986, the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on the 19th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union's members are currently paid a fixed
payment for forty hours work adjusted only by cost of
living increases. Overtime hours do not earn a bonus
payment, even though the distribution workers can
work up to thirteen hours overtime during peak
periods (i.e. July/December).
(ii) The scheme that the Company is offering would reduce
earnings considerably. The Union has in good faith
tried to entertain the Company's offer, but has
concluded that it must be rejected because it will
lead to a deterioration of the workers position. The
scheme is acceptable for the workers in Cork because
they have different restrictions to their Dublin
counterparts eg. pub hours, distances travelled, etc.
The Dublin workers are behind in terms of their
ability to earn.
(iii) The initiative to change the bonus scheme came from
the Union. It is now some eighteen months since the
original claim. During that time there has been
little willingness on the Company's part to give any
ground.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The present scheme is totally unmeasured and it is
inappropriate that it be extended to overtime hours.
This would have the same effect as consolidating the
present bonus scheme into the basic rate of pay. It is
much more appropriate to replace outmoded schemes such
as the present one, with properly investigated and
studied incentive schemes. The Company is currently
investigating all of its incentive schemes and this
investigation is at an advanced stage.
(b) The Company's proposed scheme is exactly the same as
that which applies in Cork, where it works very
satisfactorily. If given a reasonable opportunity to
operate, the workers in Dublin would also feel the
benefits of the scheme. Under the new scheme the
Company estimates that the average bonus would be #49
instead of the current #45. If in due time the scheme
is proved to be ineffective the Company is prepared to
re-negotiate.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Taking into account the considerable delay which has occurred
since the conciliation conference of November, 1985, the Court
recommends that the Union's proposal be applied for the six month
period 1st October, 1986, to 31st March, 1987, to enable a further
attempt to identify differences which exist between the Cork and
Dublin operations which might justify a different scheme or
differing rates in the two areas. In so recommending, the Court
is making no comment on the desirability of any particular scheme,
but is noting that both sides have agreed in their working
agreement, signed in 1983, that amongst other matters, bonus
schemes such as this were to be reviewed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
______January,___1987. ____________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman