INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
AD TEC TEORANTA
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 17 workers for improved pay and conditions plus a range of other issues.
2. The Company is part of the Timoney Group which designs and manufactures high mobility special purpose vehicles, and sub-assemblies. It is also involved in other manufacturing projects. The Union's claim was submitted in May, 1997. The Company responded to the Union's claim in February, 1998 with proposals which were rejected. A ballot of the work force resulted in industrial action which was suspended pending the referral of the issues in dispute to conciliation. A conciliation conference was held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 24th April, 1998. A number of the issues in dispute were agreed at conciliation, however the parties could not reach agreement on the following items and at the end of the conciliation conference their final positions were as follows:
1. Union's Claim:
1. An increase in basic pay;
2. An increase in service pay;
3. Time-keeping: The bonus of £4 p.w. be increased to £10 p.w.;
4. Training: all time used while on training or off-site would be compensated for at appropriate rates particularly at week-ends;
5. Payment of the 2% local bargaining element of Partnership 2000;
6. Tool Allowance: The current rate of £125 p.a. be increased to £250 p.a.;
7. Overnight Allowance: The present rate of £23 should be increased to £33;
8. All other off-site allowance expenses increased by 30%;
9. Precision Engineering: The Union seeks a higher grade or rate for workers who carry out precision engineering. There are only two workers involved
In return for the payment of wages by direct credit transfer, the Company's response to the Union's claim was as follows:
1. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under P2000 and as such is rejected;
2. An increase in service pay across the board of £1.80;
3. Time-keeping and attendance bonus of £4 p.w. to be eliminated as a bonus payment and consolidated on the basic rate of pay;
4. The Company to pay training expenses and travelling expenses at the appropriate rate in respect of such expenses being incurred at the behest of the Company;
5. The Company to pay the 2% local bargaining clause of P2000 from the due date;
6. An increase in tool allowance of £50 to be funded on a 50:50 basis by the Company and employees (an increase of £25 to the Company);
7. An increase in the overnight rate to £28;
8. An increase on the other rates by reference to P2000;
9. The claim was rejected as a cost increasing claim under P2000.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 2nd June, 1998. A Court hearing was held on the 7th July, 1998.
3. 1. There has been a decrease in the workforce of approximately 8 workers. They were not replaced. There has been no corresponding decrease in the workload and the workforce has made a significant contribution to the Company by way of productivity.
2. The work carried out by the employees concerned is of the heavy industrial engineering type i.e. rebuilding of engines, axles, buses/lorries and a refitting service. The work is comparable to that undertaken in the engineering division of Dublin Bus/Bus Eireann. The workers concerned carry out work at Bus Eireann Premises. However, their average weekly wage is substantially lower than workers in Bus Eireann or comparable employments. The norm in the industry is well in excess of £300 per week.
4. 1. The Company has been experiencing serious financial losses (details to the Court). Despite these losses the Company honoured the basic terms of P2000 and made significant efforts to minimise the effects of these losses on the workers by avoiding lay-offs.
2. Notwithstanding the terms of P2000 and the losses borne by the Company Management has attempted to address the Union's claim as best it can. Concession will place added costs on the Company.
3. The basic issues have not changed since the conciliation conference. The Company is still experiencing losses and faces difficulties in the market place. It is a legitimate expectation for the Company to seek productivity in return for any concessions.
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties recommends that the Company proposals listed in its submission to the Court be accepted by the employees, with the following modifications:
The proposed increase in service pay to be £2 across the board.
Time-keeping and attendance bonus of £4 per week to be eliminated as a bonus payment, and £6 to be consolidated on the basic rate of pay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th July, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.