Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8753 Case Number: LCR11088 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ESTUARY FUELS LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Claim, by the Union, on behalf of nine managerial, adminstrative and clerical staff for improved salary scales.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the mediator carried out a thorough
investigation into the duties and salaries of the claimants and
that apart from the increases he has recommended, he has also
recommended that the managerial salaries should be the subject of
a deeper review in January next. The Court recommends that the
claimants should accept the mediator's recommendations. In this
context the Court notes management's statement that, as the
Company develops, there will be opportunities for individuals to
improve their earning potential in line with that development.
In addition the Court recommends that the Union should now accept
and sign the Grievance and Disputes Procedure.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
30th March, 1987 -------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8753 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11088
CC861825 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11088
Parties: ESTUARY FUELS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union, on behalf of nine managerial,
adminstrative and clerical staff for improved salary scales.
Background:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Aran Energy and is engaged in
the distribution of oil in the south and west of the country.
Twenty four people are employed in total. The Union, in early
1986, sought a revised pay structure for nine workers. The
workers are currently on fixed salaries. Incremental scales
leading to maxima as set out below were sought. The Company
sought the implementation of a Grievance and Disputes Procedure,
already agreed with the Union. The Union was prepared to
implement this Procedure once satisfied with the salary structure.
Position Current Salary Claim at max.
Worker 1: Retail Sales Manager | #16,300 | #24,000
Worker 2: Operations Manager | #16,585 | #24,000
Worker 3: Distribution Manager | #11,450 | #20,000
Worker 4: Industrial Sales | |
Manager | #13,520 | #20,000
Worker 5: Operations Assistant | # 7,700 | #16,500
Worker 6: Clerical | # 8,736 | #14,649
Worker 7: Clerical | # 8,736 | #14,649
Worker 8: Clerical | # 7,280 | #14,649
Worker 9: Clerical | # 7,800 | #14,649
A number of meetings were held at local level but no settlement
was reached. The parties then engaged the services of a Rights
Commissioner, in a private capacity. The Company contends that he
was to act as an Arbitrator while the Union contends that he was
to act as a Mediator. The Rights Commissioner investigated the
matter over several days between 19th August, 1986 and 7th
October, 1986. On 15th October, 1986 he recommended as follows:-
"In Recommendation No. 9623 on another employment the
Labour Court did not support a claim for incremental
salary scales on the grounds that the current staff
structure was small. The executive staff in Estuary
Fuels Limited is small so I do not recommend
incremental scales for them. There ought to be a scale
for clerical personnel as there are four of them.
The Company were prepared to adjust the salaries of
three but if this only were to be recommended there
would be anomalies in the structure. Accordingly
everybody is to get an increase.
With effect from 1st July, 1986 I recommend:
* Worker 1 #18050
Worker 2 #18335
Worker 3 #13450
Worker 4 #14520
The normal cost of living and merit adjustment should
take place in January 1987 but there ought to be a
deeper review of these salaries in January 1988.
The clerical scale is to be:
#7500 x #250 by 9 increments to #9750.
(If the Company recruits more clerical
staff it may do so at a rate lower than
the scale recommended or set a recruitment
scale)
From 1st July 1986 Worker 6 and Worker 7 are to be
placed on the 6th point and Worker 9 and Worker 8 on
the 2nd point.
The incremental date in future is to be 1st January so
that the next increment is due on 1st January 1987.
Worker 5 is little more than a year with the Company
and his function so far is mainly clerical. I
recommend a fixed salary of #8000 a year for him from
1st July 1986 with a review each January.
The Grievance and Disputes Procedure should now be
signed and implemented."
* All workers were referrd to by name in the recommendation.
The workers rejected this recommendation and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 6th
November, 1986. A conciliation conference was held in Limerick on
16th December, 1986. No agreement was reached, however and the
matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. A
Court hearing took place on 3rd March, 1987, in Limerick.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company has been in business since 1977. During
that time it has achieved major growth and is now
proving its ability to compete in the marketplace.
Much of this growth is attributable to the efforts of
the employees concerned in this claim. It is felt that
management has not appreciated or acknowledged the
contribution of its employees since the success of the
Company has not been reflected in salary levels. Last
year's annual report indicated that it was due to
improved marketing efforts that the Company enhanced
its position in the somewhat volatile market place.
This reflects the contribution of the Company's
employees in the marketing area. The Company is a
subsidiary of Aran Energy P.L.C. (details of the work
of all the nine employees were supplied to the Court).
(ii) Drivers in the Company can earn more than #30,000 per
annum for delivering the product while senior
management personnel are earning much less.
(iii) The Union believes that in this Company workers should
receive remuneration comparable to their counterparts
in industry generally. There are large divergences in
existence in the cases of the nine workers covered by
this claim in comparison with similar workers elsewhere
(details supplied).
(iv) The Union considers that the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner proves its case that the current
salary levels are not what they should be. However,
the Union believes that in recommending "a deeper
review of these salaries in January, 1988" the Rights
Commissioner chose the easy option in dealing with what
he saw to be a very large gap in salaries to be
bridged. The Union believes that the salary structure
should be improved without delay, irrespective of how
high an award may appear, because of the fact that the
workers have been underpaid for so long.
(v) In the course of the dispute the Company has changed
the cars available to employees to ones of lesser
values (by approximately #2,000).
(vi) The Operations Manager, when promoted to this position
received approximately #4,500 per annum less than his
predecessor in the post.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company believes that the salaries it pays are
reasonable and competitive. Any comparison with the
rates of pay applying in the major oil companies is
rejected. Comparisons can only be made with oil
companies of similar size and structure or with local
companies. The Company is satisfied that its salaries
generally compare favourably with salaries in such
companies. Furthermore, the small size of the Company
means that the weight of responsibility on managerial
staff is not what it would be in a similar position in
a larger Company.
(b) The Company rejects any contention that it has kept
salaries depressed. It has been flexible and generous
in dealing with salaries as evidenced by the fact that
all individuals have had their salaries discussed and
agreed at the time of appointment, all grievances have
been examined and in some cases adjustments made.
Annual increases have been above the national and
industrial average.
(c) The Oil industry generally has gone through major
rationalisation in recent years as a result of
declining markets and increased competition. In
contrast to the industry generally, the Company has
increased employment from 15 in 1981 to 24 at present,
involving a substantial increase in payroll costs. Any
further increase in payroll costs at this time will
adversely affect competitiveness and endanger
employment.
(d) The Company considers that the introduction of salary
scales in a Company of this size is unnecessary. As
the Company develops there will be opportunities for
individuals to improve their earning potential in line
with that development.
(e) There has been no widespread dissatisfaction expressed
by employees at levels of pay.
(f) The Company accepts that there is room for some
improvement in the salary levels of Worker 3 the
Distribution Manager, Worker 4, the Industrial Sales
Manager, and Worker 8, a clerical worker. The Company
sees no justification for improvements in the salary
levels of the other six workers.
(g) With regard to the Operations Manager, the current job
specification is different to the job specification at
the time the previous incumbent held the post. At that
time the job specification included the purchasing and
shipping of oil, which accounts for the difference in
salary levels.
(h) The Company intends, as it has done in the past, to
keep its pay levels under review and to make
adjustments where necessary.
(i) The Company considers it essential that the grievances
and disputes procedures agreed with the Union be signed
and accepted in the interests of good industrial
relations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the mediator carried out a thorough
investigation into the duties and salaries of the claimants and
that apart from the increases he has recommended, he has also
recommended that the managerial salaries should be the subject of
a deeper review in January next. The Court recommends that the
claimants should accept the mediator's recommendations. In this
context the Court notes management's statement that, as the
Company develops, there will be opportunities for individuals to
improve their earning potential in line with that development.
In addition the Court recommends that the Union should now accept
and sign the Grievance and Disputes Procedure.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
30th March, 1987 -------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman