Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86685 Case Number: LCR11028 Section / Act: S67 Parties: N.E.T. - and - ITGWU;ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 130 shift process operators at Arklow for the payment of a compensation award made to similar workers at Cork.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to all the circumstances it does not consider
that it would be justified in recommending concession of the claim
for compensation in this case.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86685 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11028
CC861393 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11028
PARTIES: NITRIGIN EIREANN TEORANTA
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 130 shift process operators
at Arklow for the payment of a compensation award made to similar
workers at Cork.
Background:
2. The Company operates two factories, one in Arklow and one in
Cork. Process operators are employed at both factories and there
are two grades of operators, grade I and grade III.
3. In the course of discussions in 1979 on a comprehensive
agreement for operators at the Cork factory the Union (Cork
branch) sought, among other things, a regrading for all operators
from grade III to grade I. The Company rejected the claim but in
the course of negotiations in 1980 on the matter agreement was
finally reached between the parties to have the Cork operators
regraded to grade II (grade II is a semi-skilled grade for
maintenance workers and not part of the structure for operators in
the Company). However, before the regrading agreement could be
implemented a moratorium was placed by the Company on all cost
increasing claims, because of the losses it was experiencing at
that time. When the moratorium was lifted in 1984 the Union
sought implementation of the regrading agreement. The Company
claimed inability to implement the agreement but agreed to pay
compensation in lieu of regrading. At Labour Court conciliation
level a proposal for the payment of #2,000 to each operator in
respect of compensation, on a phased basis, emerged. This was
rejected by the Union as was a subsequent Labour Court
Recommendation on the matter, which recommended the proposal at
conciliation, subject to adjustments to the proposed phasing.
Following the serving of notice of strike action on the Company by
the Union the parties, at conciliation level, finally agreed a
compensation package of #3,600, payable in two phases to each
worker.
4. In March, 1986, the Union (Arklow branch) on behalf of the
operatives concerned in the Arklow factory served a claim on the
Company for the payment to them of the #3600 made to the Cork
operators, on the basis of the pay parity which exists between the
two groups of workers. The Company rejected the claim and as no
agreement could be reached at local level the matter was referred,
on 22nd April, 1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference, held on 28th April, 1986,
failed to resolve the dispute and the parties, on 26th August,
1986, requested that the matter be referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. Due to the unavailability
of the parties the Court was unable to investigate the dispute
until 10th February, 1986, in Wicklow.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The Company has always accepted that parity in respect
of rates of pay exists between the Arklow and Cork
plants. Furthermore the Company, in September, 1984,
put forward a comprehensive agreement for its total
workforce, which has been accepted by the workers
concerned, paragraph 1.9 of which stated the
following:-
"The Company recognises that differences exist
between the sites and it is their intention to
eliminate these in a reasonable time in
consultation with the workforce".
Given these circumstances, the amount of compensation
paid to the operatives in the Cork plant should also
be applied to the workers concerned.
(ii) Had the regrading in Cork been implemented as agreed
the pay of the Arklow workers would have increased
automatically from a scale of #6630 x (9) - #7984 to a
scale of #6955 x (9) - #8416 per annum.
(iii) In 1979 agreement was reached on an improvement in the
salary scale of operators in Cork which resulted in
them moving up two points on the scale. This
improvement was also applied to the operators in
Arklow without any negotiations on the matter taking
place.
(iv) The original agreement on regrading for the Cork
operators did not provide for any change in the
conditions of employment of those workers.
(v) The buying out of the regrading in the Cork factory in
order to avoid paying the Arklow operators is
unacceptable to the Union and is seen as a sharp
practice by the Company.
(vi) Given that parity of rates for operators has always
existed between the two plants in Arklow and Cork, the
claim is fully justified and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The claim at Cork was based on conditions in the Cork
area which do not apply in the Arklow area.
(b) The Company never accepted that there was a basis for
the claim at Cork. It was conceded after a dispute
but never implemented by the Company. After the
termination of the embargo in the Company the claim
was rejected as having no substance. Only on the
recommendation of the Conciliation Officer did the
Company ever consider buying out the claim.
(c) The purpose of buying out the agreement on regrading
at the level agreed was to prevent knock-on claims
arising from other groups of workers in the future.
(d) While basic rates between the Company's Arklow and
Cork sites have been the same the remuneration package
of overtime systems, grading structure and other
entitlements have varied. As provided for in
paragraph 1.9 of the comprehensive agreement the
Company is seeking to equalise terms and conditions of
employment between the two sites and to this end has
bought out some of these practices or entitlements.
However, it would not be appropriate to compensate
groups who never had these in the first place. For
example, the group of workers concerned in Arklow were
awarded #1,950 in 1986 for a buy-out of some
entitlements and the reduction in overtime earnings
from the start-up method of certain plants and manning
of the harbour facilities, but the award was not
passed on to any other group.
(e) Concession of this claim in respect of the workers
concerned would be very costly for the Company and
would have further repercussive effects by way of
similar claims from other groups of workers within the
plant. Given the Company's current loss-making
situation such additional costs could not be
sustained.
(f) The claim is without substance and was never discussed
with the Company until now although it was conceded to
Cork workers in 1980. Also, the original claim was
made by the Union on the basis of it applying to the
group of workers at Cork only.
(g) In all the circumstances the claim must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to all the circumstances it does not consider
that it would be justified in recommending concession of the claim
for compensation in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
28th February, 1987 ________________________
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman