Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87585 Case Number: LCR11460 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claims for: (a) the consolidation of bonus with basic salary for all purposes including pension. (b) the extension of the existing basic supervisory salary scale by three increments.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) Consolidation of bonus into basic salary for all
purposes including pension.
10. The Court recommends that for the future the amount of any pay
increase be calculated on the gross salary (including bonus) but
that the amount be applied to the basic element only, in other
words the bonus be frozen.
In addition, on the 1st August each year starting in 1988, one
tenth be consolidated in basic pay for pension purposes until full
consolidation is achieved.
Claim (b) the extension of supervisory salary scale
11. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87585 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11460
CC8717 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11460
Parties: TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims for:
(a) the consolidation of bonus with basic salary for all
purposes including pension.
(b) the extension of the existing basic supervisory salary
scale by three increments.
General Background:
2. These claims concern six supervisors employed by the Company.
They arise from a rationalisation agreement which the Company
reached with the Union in July, 1986. The Company rejected the
claims. No agreement was reached at local level and on 16th
December, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A response to the invitation to attend
conciliation was received on 26th February, 1987 and conciliation
conferences were held on 4th March, 1987 and 20th July, 1987 but
agreement was not reached. On 28th July, 1987 the case was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing was held on 4th September, 1987.
Claim (a): the consolidation of bonus with basic salary for all
purposes including pension
Background:
3. While the supervisors were not included in the agreement, the
Union claims that agreement was reached on the understanding that
the supervisors position would be looked at favourably in the
Autumn. It is claiming that the supervisory salary scale should
be extended and that the consolidation of the bonus should be
included for pension purposes. During the negotiations the
Company offered consolidation of bonus on to the basic rates on
condition that it would lead to the creation of a new standard
wage for all purposes other than pension. The workers would only
accept the offer if it was extended to include pensions. This was
not acceptable to the Company.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Company's proposal is not adequate recompense for
the workers co-operation with rationalisation. It does
not satisfy the requirement for a scale review which
was specified in the agreement of 1/7/86. With one
exception the proposal would have little or no benefit
to the workers. The proposal is acceptable provided it
is extended for pension purposes.
(ii) It is not acceptable that consolidation should not
include pension purposes. This would be discriminatory
to the workers who would be the only ones within the
staff pension scheme whose pension would be based on
less than their basic salary.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Union's claim pre-supposed that consolidation is
settled and agreed. The Company's offer was clear and
unambiguous. It was made on the basis of acceptance in
total. The Union in rejecting any element of the offer
makes it no longer available.
(b) The Company's offer by its nature and construction is
non severable. The term and condition are one within
the meaning of the offer. Therefore it is not
appropriate that the Court for the purposes of
adjudication should be used to separate the condition
from the term. To do so negates the Company's offer.
(c) All other groups within the Company's 102 workers who
have accepted consolidation of bonus have done so in
the knowledge and understanding that it cannot be used
for pension purposes.
Claim (b): the extension of the existing basic supervisory salary
scale
Background:
6. In July, 1986 the Company implemented a voluntary programme of
redundancy/rationalisation which involved 13 redundancies,
reorganisation and changes in work practices. The question of
compensation for remaining workers was negotiated with the Union's
No. 2 Branch, which represents clerical, supervisory and
technical/service staff in the Company. Under an agreed package
the clerical and service workers received a 7% wage increase over
seven months from 1st January, 1987. It was also agreed that
discussions would take place in the Autumn regarding a review of
the supervisors salary scales in the light of new and evolving
responsibilities. In December, 1986 discussions took place. The
Union claimed the extension of the supervisors' salary scales by 3
increments and the elimination of the bottom 3 points of the
scale. The Company stated that it was not satisfied that the
workers had taken on any new/evolving responsibilities and dit not
make any offer.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) The supervisors are and have always been part of the
Union's No. 2 Branch negotiating unit. They were party
to the negotiations and the decisions of the agreement
on rationalisation of 1986. As part and parcel of that
agreement specific provisions were made that their
salary scales would be reviewed with an implementation
date for change of 1st January, 1987. Management are
therefore committed by agreement to compensate the
workers by scale adjustment as per that agreement and
in line with awards to all other members within the
negotiating group.
(ii) The changes taken on board by the supervisors (details
supplied to the Court) show that they have made
whatever contribution has been required of them a fact
which has not been contested by management.
(iii) The Union's claim which would provide an increase in
scale maximum of approximately 9% is reasonable and
indeed is probably on the low side when compared to the
increase in scale maximum for other staff i.e up to
50%.
Company's arguments:
9. (a) Discussions have failed to satisfy the Company that the
supervisors have taken on any new increased and
evolving responsibilities. Accordingly there is no
justification for concession of their claim.
(b) The Company rejects the concept that the supervisors
should get the same benefits as their colleagues simply
because the Union's No. 2 Branch negotiated as a unit.
This would be unacceptable.
(c) The Company has consistently stated that the only
reason for payment is:
(i) promotion to a higher grade or job function with
increased prospects,
(ii) the acquisition of additional skills, knowledge
etc. coupled with the introduction of new
machinery or work saving devices resulting in
increased efficiency/production, cost
savings/reductions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) Consolidation of bonus into basic salary for all
purposes including pension.
10. The Court recommends that for the future the amount of any pay
increase be calculated on the gross salary (including bonus) but
that the amount be applied to the basic element only, in other
words the bonus be frozen.
In addition, on the 1st August each year starting in 1988, one
tenth be consolidated in basic pay for pension purposes until full
consolidation is achieved.
Claim (b) the extension of supervisory salary scale
11. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_____________________
Chairman.
8th October, 1987
T.O'M/J.C.