Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87853 Case Number: LCR11605 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HARVEY PRINTERS LIMITED - and - IRISH WOMEN WORKERS' BRANCH;THE FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Increase in rate of pay of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87853 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11605
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 T0 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: HARVEY PRINTERS LIMITED
and
IRISH WOMEN WORKERS' BRANCH
THE FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Increase in rate of pay of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed in the Company for 42
years. She was employed as a journeywoman after completing 4
years' apprenticeship in the trade. In 1962 the worker accepted
additional responsibilities for which she received a differential
over the journeywoman's rate of pay of #1.50/#2.00. In October,
1985 the Union on behalf of the worker requested an increase in
this differential on the basis that it had fallen out of line with
the journeywoman's rate of pay and the Company agreed to a #5.00
increase in pay. In 1986 it emerged that a worker had been
promoted in 1984. The Union claimed that this promotion took
place without consultation with the Union and that the worker
concerned should have been given the opportunity to apply for this
post. Following this the Union put in a claim on behalf of the
worker for an increase in her differential for added
responsibilities. The claim was rejected by the Company and the
matter was later referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 3rd July,
1987 at which no progress was made and it was later agreed to
refer the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 9th
December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is presently paid #158.01 per week compared to
the journeywoman's rate of #145.82, this represents a
differential of #12.19 per week. This differential is not
large enough taking into account the responsibility and
amount of effort the worker puts in to the Company. Since
the last increase of (#5), the worker has been given
additional responsibilities.
2. The worker's duties include packaging and labelling of
parcels going out by both post and van delivery, keeping
records of stamps, deliveries and despatch dates, etc, i.e.
all that is expected of a despatch clerk. Rates of pay for
despatch clerks vary but the scales generally range from:
6,487 - 9,037, 7,322 - 12,975, 12,449 - 18,463. If the first
scale was taken as an average, at the top of the scale there
is a difference of #15 per week.
3. The Union is not claiming that outside rates of pay
should have a direct influence on the worker's rate but that
they should be taken into account in arriving at an
appropriate rate for this worker. The worker's job is
onerous and responsible and a minimum payment of at least #25
per week over the journeywoman's rate should apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker is employed as a packer of flat sheets and
also has responsibility for postage, including records of
stamp usage. In addition, by agreement with the Union in
1982 there is provision for her to carry out whatever other
binding work necessary, when there is no despatch work to be
done. The worker's rate of pay is #158.19 per week, other
workers in the binding department are on rates of pay of
#145.83 per week, which is considerably less. In addition,
another worker whose duties are to pack continuous stationery
receives #151.46 per week, again less than this worker whose
rate of pay is even in excess of the top point of the
clerical scale.
2. Since 1982, the worker has received two increases in pay
over and above wage rounds or cost of living increases, the
most recent of these was an increase of #5 per week made in
November, 1985. There has been no change in the worker's
duties therefore there is no justification for the claim. It
is difficult to understand that the Union is yet again
seeking another increase. The present wage round expires at
the end of 1987 and the Company will be facing further
increases in labour costs. In addition, concession of the
claim would result in repercussive claims from other groups
in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
21st December, 1987
U.M./J.C. Deputy Chairman