Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD86990
Case Number: LCR10959
Section / Act: S67
Parties: ABS PUMPS LTD - and - ITGWU
|
Subject:
Claim on behalf of approximately twenty-four craft-workers under the 25th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. In relation to the pay aspect of the 25th round claim the
Court considers that the Company's offer of 8% phased over 18
months as set out in their submission should be accepted.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for increased
annual leave and with regard to 'service pay' considers that both
parties should resume local negotiations immediately so that the
Company has an opportunity to respond to the Union's claim. Any
agreed proposals should be applied on termination of the 25th
round. The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86990 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10959
CC861757 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10959
PARTIES: ABS PUMPS LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately twenty-four craft-workers
under the 25th wage round.
Background:
2. The Company has negotiated a wage round of 8% phased over 18
months plus a lump sum of #110 for its shop floor and staff
sections. The 24th round wage agreement for the craft workers
expired on the 30th November, 1985. On the 11th July, 1986 the
Union on their behalf served on the Company a claim on in respect
of the 25th round, as follows:-
12 month agreement
16% increase in wages and related earnings
an additional days annual leave, bringing total to 21 days
introduction of a service pay scheme
an improvement in the present call-out system
The Union also sought agreement on a merit system and the removal
of one increment limit on scale one.
The Company's response was to offer the Union either of two
options:-
a) An 18 month agreement
4% from 1st December, 1985
2% from 1st September, 1986
2% from 1st March, 1987
plus #110 at summer holidays.
b) A 24 month agreement
12 month pay pause
10% from 1st December, 1986
#150 on acceptance and
#150 at Christmas, 1986,
The Company rejected the claim on holidays and the introduction of
a service pay scheme. It agreed in principle to the call out
system, agreed to sit down and discuss a merit system, and
accepted the Union's lifting of the ban on one increment increases
for scale one.
The Union rejected the offer and on 22nd October, 1986, the matter
was referred to the conciliation services of the Labour Court. A
conference took place on 13th November, 1986. The Union modified
its position on wages at the conference, claiming 8% over 12
months based on settlements in other local companies. The Company
rejected the claim on the basis that it will not pay more than has
been accepted by the majority of the workforce. No agreement
being reached the case was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on 16th December, 1986. A Court
hearing took place on 7th January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) It has already been recognised by both the Company and
the Labour Court, that there are distinctions between
the craft, factory and clerical sections. Each has
been to the Court separately on different issues and
thus have a right to negotiate separately and they are
paid in a different manner.
(b) Out of a total of 912 settlements representing 138,214
workers in the private sector, the average increase was
7.74% over a 12 month period. The main local companies
in the area have settled for 8% over 12 months.
Therefore, both in terms of national and local industry
the Company's offer falls short.
(c) Additional holidays and a shorter working week are in
accord with the ICTU policy and the policy of the
Union to help alleviate growing unemployment. Compared
to other European countries, the hours worked in
Ireland are the longest and the holidays are the
shortest.
(d) The Union rejects the Company's claim that the salary
scales was a service pay scheme as well. The
introduction of the salary scale was in response to our
claim for equal bonus with the indirect operatives.
Service pay on the other hand is payment for service.
Company's arguments:
4. (1) Any settlement greater than that already agreed to by
over 90% of the workforce, would result in an
additional increase for the total workforce. The
Company's trading position declined during 1986 and
sales fell short of target. Given this situation the
Company is not in a position to grant a further wage
increase.
(2) The craftsmen will, subject to the conditions of
agreement of January, 1985, which saw the consolidation
of an indirect bonus into the basic, receive an
increment in addition to the terms of the pay
agreement.
(3) A comparison of rates of pay of ABS craftsmen to other
companies in the area shows that the rates applying in
ABS are generally more favourable. (Details provided
to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In relation to the pay aspect of the 25th round claim the
Court considers that the Company's offer of 8% phased over 18
months as set out in their submission should be accepted.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for increased
annual leave and with regard to 'service pay' considers that both
parties should resume local negotiations immediately so that the
Company has an opportunity to respond to the Union's claim. Any
agreed proposals should be applied on termination of the 25th
round. The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.