Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87247 Case Number: LCR11219 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN - and - AUEW(TASS) |
Claim for parity of pay scales for (a) 7 draughtsmen, (b) 3 supervisors and (c) 40 clerical/administrative workers with similar E.S.B. scales.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court is of the
opinion that the wage structure now current in the Bord has
evolved in its own right through the normal negotiating process
and has a general comparability with other companies in the
semi-State sector. The principle of parity with an individual
concern has not hitherto been conceded. The fact that certain
grades have parity with or even better salaries than those in the
E.S.B. arises from the evolution of the Bord's domestic salary
structure and does not warrant a similar relationship for other
grades of the Bord's staff.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87247 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11219
CC87166 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11219
Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN
AND
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (T.A.S.S.)
Subject:
1. Claim for parity of pay scales for (a) 7 draughtsmen, (b) 3
supervisors and (c) 40 clerical/administrative workers with
similar E.S.B. scales.
Background:
2. In July, 1986, the Union claimed parity for its craft
supervisors in Bord Gais Eireann (B.G.E.) with those in the E.S.B.
and in November, 1986, a further claim for parity on behalf of
draughtsmen and clerical/administrative workers with those in the
E.S.B. was also lodged. These claims were rejected by the Company
and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 29th January, 1987. A conciliation conference was
held on 19th March, 1987 (a date suitable to both parties). As no
resolution was possible both parties agreed to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 23rd April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Following negotiations on the basis of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 6434 a salary scale for engineers
was agreed which virtually established parity with the
E.S.B. Craftsmen have scales which compare very
favourably with E.S.B. scales, in fact in all cases
they are in excess of E.S.B. scales. It is difficult
to justify engineers and craftsmen having scales
equivalent to E.S.B. and at the same time deprive
clerical, technical and supervisory workers of similar
relativity.
(b) The workers range of duties and responsibilities have
increased over the years. The Company have argued that
there are more workers employed by the E.S.B. and that
it is a much bigger organisation. It is difficult to
see how this effects the responsibilities of the
workers in B.G.E. If anything the B.G.E. workers
probably have much more responsibility and a wider
range of duties than their counterparts in the E.S.B.
Accordingly the Union consider that the pay scales
should reflect the skill and knowledge which these
workers have acquired since B.G.E. was set up.
(c) The cost of conceding these claims would have little or
no effect on the overall wages bill of B.G.E. as the
wages bill accounts for approximately 1% of the overall
turnover.
Bord's arguments:
4. (i) The present structures and gradings for the workers
concerned is more than adequate having regard to the
number of workers involved, the range of duties and
the structure and salary ranges for workers in
similar sized organisations in the public and private
sectors (details supplied to the Court).
(ii) The range of duties and responsibilities of the
workers are not as onerous as their counterparts in
the E.S.B. (details supplied to the Court). There
are also much greater numbers employed by the E.S.B.
Concession of the claim and the principle of parity
with the E.S.B. would have major repercussive effects
on the whole gas industry and the public sector
generally and would limit the Bord's capability to
support and fund the development of the industry
which is essential to protect employment.
(iii) There are of course a number of factors affecting the
financial situation of Irish Gas (these were fully
put to the Court at the recent hearing on the 26th
round claim); they are however no less relevant in
consideration of the current claim. In brief, energy
prices have fallen to half their former levels and
this situation is expected to continue into the
foreseeable future. The Supreme Court has limited
the Company's offtake of gas from Kinsale, its only
source of supply; and the Company will have
substantial costs this year and into the future
arising from the nationalisation of Dublin Gas and
other developments. All of these developments affect
the ability of Irish Gas (which doesn't make a profit
in the conventional sense) as trustee of a national
asset to contribute all excess of revenue over
expenditure to the benefit of the Exchequer. Apart
from the needs of the Exchequer to obtain all the
money it can get, the general needs of the economy,
as set out in the recent Budget speech of the
Minister for Finance, require pay increases, if
warranted, be below the level of inflation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court is of the
opinion that the wage structure now current in the Bord has
evolved in its own right through the normal negotiating process
and has a general comparability with other companies in the
semi-State sector. The principle of parity with an individual
concern has not hitherto been conceded. The fact that certain
grades have parity with or even better salaries than those in the
E.S.B. arises from the evolution of the Bord's domestic salary
structure and does not warrant a similar relationship for other
grades of the Bord's staff.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
___10th___June,____1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman