Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87651 Case Number: LCR11533 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KLINGE & CO LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an increase in pay on behalf of three watchmen and one gateman.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the pay and other benefits represent
adequate compensation for the duties and responsibilities of the
claimants and does not recommend any concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87651 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11533
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KLINGE & COMPANY
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in pay on behalf of three watchmen and
one gateman.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 3 watchmen providing security cover
between 5.00 p.m. and 9.00 a.m. Monday to Friday and 24 hour cover
on Saturdays and Sundays. A gateman is employed on fixed hours
(9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.) Monday to Friday. The watchmen are
required to patrol the factory site of seven acres each hour
(details supplied to the Court). The gateman does not patrol but
monitors traffic and personnel at the hut. The weekly wage rates
inclusive of the 27th wage round are gateman #170.96 and watchman
#219.74. The watchman's rate includes 25% shift premium and a
weekly payment of #17.64 for working an extra shift every 3 weeks.
In addition, lunch vouchers and service pay are also paid. In
January, 1986 a claim for a pay increase on behalf of the 4
workers concerned was submitted to the Company. The claim was
quantified locally at #25 a week and was made because the Company
premises had been extended. The claim was rejected by the
Company. The Union subsequently pursued the claim on behalf of
the workers and a number of meetings took place with the Company.
The issue was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 4th February, 1987. A conciliation conference was held
on 24th March, 1987. As no progress was possible the matter was
referred for investigation and recommendation to the Labour Court.
A Court hearing was held in Limerick on 27th October, 1987, a date
suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company extended the factory in November, 1985. As a
result the workload of the workers concerned was greatly
increased. The watchmen had to undertake more frequent and
longer patrols. The gateman had to deal with increased
traffic and personnel.
2. The shift allowance of 25% is not adequate compensation in
view of the type of shifts which have to be worked. The shift
allowance is paid at the same rate to other personnel who are
required to work morning and evening shifts only. It is
3. 2. (contd.) considered that the night work in particular, with
its disruption of family life, would warrant an increase in
the shift allowance to 33 1/3%.
3. The Company have argued that the workers concerned were
under utilised prior to the opening of the extension, and that
they are now working at a level that would be considered
normal. The Union refute this argument as it is highly
unlikely that any employer would employ people in the manner
suggested by the Company. The workers concerned have taken on
extra workloads and have co-operated fully with management.
This level of co-operation and extra workload should be
reflected in their wage packet.
4. The workers are also not adequately remunerated for the
week-end work. The Union are seeking that they be paid at
overtime rates of time and a half up to noon on Saturday and
at double time thereafter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workload at present is only now reaching the level
normally associated with security work in the industry. The
addition of more buildings through expansion is not grounds
for an increase in pay claim. The situation now is that less
time will be spent in the security hut and more time on site
patrol.
2. The workers concerned have covered the same hours since
the factory opened 14 years ago. Compensation for the
unsocial nature of the work is paid for at the rate of 25%
shift premium on basic pay. The Company rejects the claim for
overtime to be paid for week-end working as this already forms
part of the watchman's normal rota.
3. The rates of pay for the workers are well in line with
comparisons for similar work elsewhere (details supplied to
the Court). Any increase in the cost of giving the cover
currently being provided would force the Company to review its
operation with the possibility of sub contracting the work
out.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that the pay and other benefits represent
adequate compensation for the duties and responsibilities of the
claimants and does not recommend any concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th November, 1987 John M Horgan
MD/PG Chairman