Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87339 Case Number: LCR11311 Section / Act: S67 Parties: A.C.E.C. - and - ATGWU |
Claim on behalf of seven Shop Floor Supervisors for a review of the salary structure.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the parties agree an independent
third party to carry out an assessment of the claimants position
in the salary structure in the Company.
If the parties are unable to agree a third party the Court will on
request make a nomination.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87339 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11311
CC8771 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11311
Parties: NATIONAL INDUSTRI
(FORMERLY ACEC (I) LIMITED)
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of seven Shop Floor Supervisors for a review
of the salary structure.
Background:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of power
transformers and fluorescent light fittings at its Waterford City
plant and was recently taken over by a Norwegian company.
3. On 10th November, 1986 the Union, on behalf of the workers,
served a claim on the Company that the shop floor supervisors were
wrongly placed in the Company's salary structure and that a review
should take place. Local level meetings took place in November
and December 1986 at which the Union claimed that the correct
point on the salary structure (at end of 25th wage round) was at
Junior Management level, i.e. #282.11 per week (their present rate
is #228.00 per week). The Union also stated that it would be in
favour of a job evaluation being carried out by an agreed third
party such as the Irish Productivity Centre. The claim was
rejected by the Company and in December, 1986 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Conciliation conferences took place on 22nd January, 1987 and 5th
February, 1987 at which the Company requested the Union to drop
this claim for the present in order to settle the 26th wage round
which had been agreed with other groups in the Company. No
agreement could be reached and on 14th April, 1987 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 24th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The shop floor supervisors have approximately one
hundred and eighty years service between them and an
average of sixteen years supervisory service. The
workers have completed all the required training in
management skills and technology up-dating.
(ii) A comparison of the Company's salary scale at the end of
the 25th round in 1986 shows that relative to the duties
and responsibilities of other categories of workers, the
shop floor supervisors, with their extensive duties,
authority and responsibility, are wrongly placed on the
scale (details supplied to the Court). The workers'
present rate of pay should be increased from #228.00 per
week to the equivalent Junior Management rate of #282.11
per week.
(iii) The correct way to assess and process such a claim is to
have an evaluation and review carried out by a third
party. The Company has been unreasonable in not
addressing the situation in a positive and realistic
manner.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) There has been no significant realignment of salary
scales within the Company nor any significant change in
the duties of these workers which justifies a revision
of the salaries of these workers.
(b) Other categories of workers in the Company have accepted
technological change and have not served special claims
on the Company. Part of the shop floor supervisor's
work is to keep up to date with the technical aspects of
the work. Changes in the conditions of employment which
cannot be justified for the shop floor supervisors would
give rise to repercussive claims and destabilise
existing structures.
(c) While there have been a number of amalgamations of
sections within the Company, the principle of a foreman
supervising more than one section is a long established
practice. At times such amalgamations have both
increased and decreased the numbers of hourly paid
workers supervised (details supplied to the Court).
(d) There are various salary scales in operation in the
Company, there is no established relativity between
categories but the current structure has operated well.
In the Company's view the current salary scales are
appropriate.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the parties agree an independent
third party to carry out an assessment of the claimants position
in the salary structure in the Company.
If the parties are unable to agree a third party the Court will on
request make a nomination.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th July, 1987 Evelyn Owens
UM/PG --------------
Deputy Chairman