Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87314 Case Number: LCR11242 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TELEMARA TEO - and - FWUI |
Claim on behalf of a worker for the application of supervisor's rate of pay.
Recommendation:
5. It is clear that the claimant's responsibilities do not equate
to those of the other supervisors with whom she is claiming parity
of pay. However the Court is of the view that her duties merit
some additional payment and it recommends, accordingly, that her
wages be increased to #150 per week as from 1st June, 1987.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87314 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11242
CC87617 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11242
Parties: TELEMARA TEORANTA
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for the application of
supervisor's rate of pay.
Background:
2. The Company manufactures electrical harnesses for the
electronics industry. The worker was employed by the Company in
1981 and promoted to the position of 'Quality Supervisor' in the
Quality Control area in 1986. The worker's present rate of pay is
#140.00 per week. The Company employs three supervisors in the
production area, one on each of the Company's three main
contracts. Their present rate of pay is #165.00 per week. One of
these supervisors receives #170 per week because he was formerly
employed in a position with a higher rate of pay which he retained
as a personal rate on moving to supervisory duties. The Union
served a claim on the Company for the application of the
supervisor's rate of pay to the worker. The claim was rejected
and on 19th March, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 9th April, 1987 at which no agreement could
be reached and on 15th April, 1987 the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 19th May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Stated clearly on the worker's job description (details
supplied to the Court) is the title Supervisor which is
therefore her function. Other supervisors in the
Company earn #165 per week while this worker receives
only #140 per week.
(ii) The worker is responsible for the quality area when the
Quality Manager is absent and generally has more
responsibility in the quality department than the two
quality inspectors employed there.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The worker is not a permanent supervisor in the quality
department, as is apparent from her job description
(details supplied to the Court). The worker's job
description and hence her duties are the same as those
of the two quality inspectors, (details supplied to the
Court) except that the worker concerned, has
responsibility for covering for the Quality Manager in
his absence, for which she receives #10 extra per week.
(b) It is not valid to compare this worker's job with that
of the three supervisors. Those supervisors' functions
and responsibilities are carried out on a full-time
basis and are totally different to this worker's. They
are also responsible for a substantial number of
workers (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is clear that the claimant's responsibilities do not equate
to those of the other supervisors with whom she is claiming parity
of pay. However the Court is of the view that her duties merit
some additional payment and it recommends, accordingly, that her
wages be increased to #150 per week as from 1st June, 1987.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
--------------------
12th June, 1987
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman