Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86752 Case Number: LCR11007 Section / Act: S67 Parties: A. GUINNESS SON & CO LTD - and - GUINNESS STAFF ASSOCIATION |
Claim on behalf of salaried staff for the restoration of internal differentials.
Recommendation:
6. The Court does not find that the claim as made warrants the
granting of a general increase in salary for the claimants. The
Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
11th February, 1987 --------------
T O'M/U.S. Chairman
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86752 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11007
CC86473 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11007
Parties: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON AND CO (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
GUINNESS STAFF ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of salaried staff for the restoration of
internal differentials.
Background:
2. In October, 1984, the Association lodged a claim for the
restoration of internal differentials. The basis of the
Association's claim was that an agreement which was concluded in
October, 1983 between the Company and the Crafts and General
workers had upset existing differentials. The Company rejected
the claim as it did not consider that there was any direct
relationship between the Staff workers and the Crafts and General
workers.
3. No agreement was reached throught local discussions and on 4th
March, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 26th May,
1986, an earlier date was unsuitable to one of the parties. On
30th September, 1986, at the request of the parties, the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 12th January, 1987.
Association's arguments:
4. (i) Prior to the 1983 Agreement pay relativities had
remained unaltered for over ten years. In 1979 the
workers obtained an 8% wage increase as a result of a
claim based on comparisons with staff salaries
throughout industry generally. However, the increase
was also applied to the pay of the General, Crafts and
Supervisory workers in the Company. This emphasises
how fixed the internal relativities have been over the
years.
(ii) At present the pay differentials between the Staff
Workers and the other Groups of workers have been
upset. The other Groups have received salary
increases and this offends the fair approach which the
Company has always adopted in dealing with the
workforce.
(iii) In the context of the current Future Competitiveness
Plan (FCP), the Company is committed to eliminating
anomalies between Groups. The workers who are
represented by the Union, have fully co-operated in the
various changes involved in FCP which benefitted the
other Groups.
(iv) In their capacity as Middle and Senior Managers many of
the Staff Workers have been directly involved in the
planning and implementation of the F.C.P. It is
particularly demotivating therefore to find that the
Staff Workers are the only Group which has not received
a salary increase in the present context. In 1984 and
1985 negotiations took place between the Company and
the representatives of the General Workers and Craft
Supervisors. As a result the supervisory personnel
received an increase of #600 per annum with effect from
the 1st September, 1983 (this payment has been
increased to #800 at present). This was subsequently
confirmed at a Labour Court hearing in April 1985
(Labour Court Recommendation No. 9520 refers). The
Staff Workers' situation is particularly analogous to
that of the Supervisors as both groups were the
subjects of separate Job Assessment exercises in 1974
and 1976 respectively.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) There has never been any link between the job or
payment structure of the Staff Workers and those of the
General and Crafts weekly paid workers or the
Supervisors. In the past the implementation of a
salary structure for one group of workers did not
affect the scales of the other groups.
(b) Each individual group has different recruitment
standards and different conditions of employment.
(c) In addition the Staff Workers have the benefit of
greater service awards than the other Groups of
workers. Some of them also have the opportunity of
entering a 'merit box' which increases their salary by
#1626 p.a. The other Groups of workers do not have
this facility.
(d) The Company's rationalisation programme, involving a
#100 million investment, is intended to increase
competitiveness. Any alteration of scales now could
result in a leap-frogging situation between the various
Groups of workers.
(e) The yearly cost of concession of the Association's
claim would be over #700,000.
(f) The Association's claim covers all its members. This
includes three hundred and ninety workers in several
different trading companies. None of these companies
would contain any workers with whom relativity is at
present being claimed.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court does not find that the claim as made warrants the
granting of a general increase in salary for the claimants. The
Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
11th February, 1987 --------------
T O'M/U.S. Chairman