Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86768 Case Number: LCR10865 Section / Act: S67 Parties: - and - NISSAN IRELAND;ASTMS;ITGWU |
Cut-off point for clerical incremental pay scale.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the Company's proposal to have a
maximum point on the clerical salary scale is not unreasonable.
The Court recommends that in the unusual circumstances of this
case the parties should negotiate on the Company's proposal and on
the level of compensation which would be payable in the light of
the agreement arising from these negotiations.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86768 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10865
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10865
PARTIES: NISSAN IRELAND
and
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Cut-off point for clerical incremental pay scale.
Background:
2. In 1980 the Company agreed a pay scale with the Unions which
yielded an increment of 3.50% on the 1st June of each year. A
maximum point on the scale was not provided for and therefore, all
the clerical staff receive an increment of 3.50% each year with no
cut-off point on the scale. In the course of negotiations on the
24th and 25th pay rounds between the parties the Company attempted
to establish a maximum point on the scale but this was rejected by
the Unions. In separate negotiations on the matter following
agreement on the 26th wage round the Company proposed a cut-off
point at year 18 but this was unacceptable to the Unions. (Four
employees reached point 18 in 1986 while the others are below that
point). As no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred by the Company on 14th April, 1986, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences were held on 24th April and 26th September, 1986. At
conciliation the Company offered to negotiate the payment of
compensation to any employee who would no longer be due an
increment arising from the introduction of a cut-off point on the
scale at year 20. However, the Unions indicated that they would
be in a position to talk about a cut-off point only in the context
of the payment of an immediate substantial compensatory payment to
all clerical workers on the scale with a further payment being
required when individuals reached the cut-off point. This was
unacceptable to the Company and on the 3rd October, 1986, it
requested that the matter be referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Union agreed to the
referral and the Court investigated the dispute on 14th November,
1986.
Company's arguments:
3. (a) A payment of 3.50% to age 65 would result in an increase
of 136%, even if no other increases were to be given
for cost of living.
(b) No other employer or organisation in Ireland has an
open-ended incremental scale.
(c) Management salaries are being completely eroded by the
ongoing 3.50% per annum.
(d) The pension scheme is not able to cater for an
open-ended scale with increments of 3.50% per annum.
(e) A cut-off point is both normal and necessary. In this
context a 20 year scale is generous.
(f) Payment of compensation for loss of expected earnings
should only apply when the expected loss materialises
and not to employees whose terms in relation to the
incremental scale would not change until they reach
point 20.
(g) In all the circumstances the Company's offer is fair
and reasonable and should be accepted by the Unions.
Unions' arguments:
4. (i) The incremental scale in question was freely
negotiated by both parties in good faith and it cannot
be altered without the agreement of the workers
concerned.
(ii) The Unions have been prepared to discuss the whole
matter with the Company, on the basis that it did not
prejudice their position or that it was taken as a
sign that the Unions were prepared to accede to the
Company's proposals in any circumstances.
(iii) The Unions cannot accept that an agreement freely
entered into can be altered just because the Company
no longer likes it.
(iv) In all the circumstances the incremental scale should
be left as it is as per the 1980 agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the Company's proposal to have a
maximum point on the clerical salary scale is not unreasonable.
The Court recommends that in the unusual circumstances of this
case the parties should negotiate on the Company's proposal and on
the level of compensation which would be payable in the light of
the agreement arising from these negotiations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P. Deputy Chairman