Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87755 Case Number: LCR11553 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BECKMAN INSTRUMENTS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for a lump sum payment of #300 as part of the 26th wage round agreement.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court, in view of the fact that the same terms were offered to all
groups concerned, does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87755 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11553
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BECKMAN INSTRUMENTS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a lump sum payment of #300 as part of the 26th wage
round agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns seven clerical/administrative workers.
The Union also represents approximately 42 factory workers and
there are 23 clerical/administrative workers who are represented
by a Staff Association. The parties agreed a 4% wage increase
over 12 months from 1st May, 1987 for the factory staff plus a
lump sum payment of #260 per worker. The lump sum was calculated
on the basis of 2.50% of the basic rate. The Company then
negotiated a 4% wage increase plus a lump sum of 2.5% of salary
with the clerical/administrative workers represented by the Staff
Association. At the request of the Association the total lump sum
was allocated equally between the clerical/administrative workers
represented by the Association. This gave all those workers a
lump sum of #300.
3. The Union has accepted the 4% wage increase on behalf of its
clerical/administrative members but is also claiming a lump sum
payment of #300. The Company rejected the claim and offered a
lump sum payment of 2.5% to be paid equally to each of these
workers. This would mean a lump sum payment of #260 to each
worker. This as not acceptable to the Union.
4. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 7th
July, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 9th
September, 1987 but no agreement was reached. On 2nd October,
1987 the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 11th November,
1987 in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The clerical/administrative workers, represented by both
the Union and the Staff Association, form the one
administrative group. This group is covered by the same
grading structure which was established following a job
evaluation in 1984. Therefore, the 2.5% should not be
calculated on a separate basis of trade union membership,
which has the effect of giving a higher increase to non-Union
members as against Union members.
2. The Company is following an anti-Union policy as the
workers are being discriminated against under the Company's
proposal. The majority of the Union workers are on the lower
grade of the salary structure. Therefore, by sub-dividing
this original grouping it is proposed by the Company to pay
Union workers less than non Union workers. This would not be
the case if the group had been treated as one single grouping
as heretofore.
3. Once the principal of sub-dividing the group is
established it allows for further sub-division in the future.
The possibility for fermentation and discrimination in future
settlements are obvious.
4. The Union must conclude that the Company wishes to
penalise the Union workers by arbitrarily isolating them
within their own group, which it would seem is based on their
trade union membership.
5. The workers should be treated equally with other staff
particularly workers of the same grade, within their general
grouping and should, therefore, receive the #300 gross.
6. In 1984 the Union found it necessary to enter into an
official dispute due to the Company's reluctance to recognise
the Union's right to represent clerical/administrative
workers. Following this recognition a job evaluation was
carried out as a result of which all of the jobs in the
administrative and technical area were evaluated and compared
against one another. The outcome was that a grading
structure and salary scales were established and agreed upon
as a group and subsequent wage settlements and benefits have
applied equally across this group.
7. The Staff Association is a non union organisation.
Therefore, the Union could not be party to negotiations with
it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has treated all employees equally in
discussions on the 1987 pay claims. The cost of the lump
sums offered to all employees is roughly 2.5%. This was
offered to the Staff Association and the clerical workers
represented by the Union. The Staff Association requested
that the money should be divided equally amongst its members.
In effect, this means that the higher paid members of that
group agreed to take a lesser lump sum provided that their
portion was distributed amongst the lower paid members of the
group. The Company considered that the request was laudable
and reasonable and since it did not increase the cost of its
proposal, it was happy to accede to it.
2. The situation for the clerical workers represented by the
Union is that having refused joint negotiations, they do not
receive the benefit of the distribution requested by the
Staff Association. Thus, the effect is that they receive a
lump sum of #260. In percentage terms, this is marginally
more than that received by the Staff Association. If the
lump sum of #300 was granted, however, it would be equivalent
to a lump sum of 2.9% which would not be fair to the other
groups.
3. The Company has consistently requested that joint
negotiations with the Staff Association and Union
representing the clerical workers should take place. The
clerical employees in the Union share the same grading
structure as their counterparts represented by the Staff
Association. The Company considers that the grading
structure is sacrosanct in that respect.
4. The present dispute is a typical example of the
difficulties which can arise through insisting on separate
discussions. The dispute would not have occurred if the
Company's approach was adopted.
5. The Union is claiming the right to negotiate separately
but is insisting on the benefits of concession made by
members of the Staff Association to others within their own
group.
6. Concession of this claim is likely to have an impact on
the other groups who have concluded their negotiations and
expect that others would not be treated more favourably than
they.
6. 7. The Company regrets the difficulty which has arisen but
is not in a position to address it unless there is an
acceptance of joint negotiations for the two groups.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court, in view of the fact that the same terms were offered to all
groups concerned, does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
1st December, 1987
T.O'M/J.C. Deputy Chairman