Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87317 Case Number: AD8768 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAVAN CRYSTAL LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal against a Rights Commissioners Recommendation concerning the payment of a lump sum and an evaluation of jobs.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and notes that the parties have not yet decided on future clerical
salary structures. In all the circumstances they are of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87317 THE LABOUR COURT AD6887
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 68 OF 1987
Parties: CAVAN CRYSTAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioners Recommendation
concerning the payment of a lump sum and an evaluation of jobs.
Background:
2. This appeal concerns a clerical worker employed by the
Company. Since April, 1986 the Union has represented the four
clerical workers in the Company. The Union claimed payment of
#700 - #800 in respect of an increment which the worker concerned
had lost. The Company agreed to pay the worker #700. However,
the worker then informed the Union that the original claim should
have been for #1150. The Union then claimed payment of #450 to
restore parity with another clerical worker who had got that
additional amount. The Company rejected the claim. No agreement
was reached through local negotiations and the matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner. On 4th March, 1987, having investigated
the matter, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:
The Company conceded the #700 increase in good faith
and it would not be fair now to impose a further
increase on them.
At some time however the jobs of the two employees
ought be evaluated on the ground to determine whether
or not they are of equal value.
On 6th April, 1987 the Union appealed that recommendation to the
Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 29th July,
1987 in Cavan.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union does not agree that the Company's decision
to grant the other clerical worker the extra #450 was
based on an objective evaluation of her work. The
basis of that being claimed was that the clerical
workers' relativities, with the factory operatives,
had been eroded and that the increments due should
take that into account.
(ii) The decision in favour of the other worker had more to
do with snubbing the worker than any other
consideration. The worker is in no doubt that the
Company would have liked to see her leave as at that
time she was the only clerk married with children.
(iii) The Company also claim that they withheld the #700
increment from the worker because of dissatisfaction
with her performance. The only complaint that could
be identified by the Company was an apparent
irregularity in stock discovered in 1985. It
subsequently transpired that the Company could not
sustain their complaint when it appeared to have been
a mistake made by another person in the Store
Department.
(iv) The Union has difficulty in accepting the Company's
view on the difference in job content as a reason for
salary differential. No local employer makes such a
distinction.
(v) The Company knew that the Union had understated the
claim all along, because they asked the Union twice to
state exactly what the claim was for the worker. The
Company made a big issue out of conceding what should
have been properly granted to the worker 12 months
earlier. By making such a big deal about granting the
#700, the Company succeeded in disguising the fact
that parity was not being restored to the worker.
(vi) The Union holds that an outside based evaluation, as
proposed by the Rights Commissioner, is unwarranted
and that the Court should reverse the Recommendation
and award the member the additional #450 as claimed.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company does not see any grounds for a claim of
parity between the worker and the other clerical
worker on the basis that their jobs differ
considerably in respect of both job functions and
level of responsibility. The other clerical worker
has a heavier work load than that of the worker and
carries a greater degree of responsibility than her
colleague.
(b) The comparitor in this claim as well as being the
Company's book-keeper also holds the position of shop
steward to the clerical staff. It is important to
note this because at no time could there have been any
misunderstanding amongst any of the clerical employees
as to what increments each of them had received.
Therefore the worker was fully aware that her
colleague had received an increment over and above
those previously awarded.
(c) The Union claimed an increase of #700 for the worker
and this is the figure the Company entered into
meaningful negotiations on. Not only was the claim
for #700 conceded, but also full retrospection was
awarded.
(d) It is entirely unacceptable from the Company's point
of view that the claim by the Union for #700 fully
retrospective which was discussed in meetings over a
period of five months can now be re-entered as a claim
of parity because of an alleged misunderstanding on
the actual rates of pay for clerical staff.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and notes that the parties have not yet decided on future clerical
salary structures. In all the circumstances they are of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman
27th August, 1987.
T.O'M./J.C.