Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87636 Case Number: LCR11471 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK GAS CO. - and - AUEW(TASS) |
Claim on behalf of twelve workers in the accountancy and engineer grades for the establishment of new wage scales/parity.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that the Union has not established a sustainable basis for its
claim for parity of salary scales with B.G.E. and accordingly does
not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87636 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11471
CC87938 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11471
Parties: CORK GAS COMPANY
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS
TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY SECTION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of twelve workers in the accountancy and
engineer grades for the establishment of new wage scales/parity.
Background:
2. In 1984/1985 a formalised salary structure was introduced for
the workers and has been in existence since (details supplied to
the Court). Prior to this salaries were negotiated on an
individual basis.
3. In August, 1985 the Union served a claim on the Company for
the restructuring of wage scales in order to establish parity with
Bord Gais Eireann (B.G.E.). Local level meetings took place at
which no agreement could be reached and on 3rd December, 1986 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 19th February, 1987
and as a result of discussions the parties agreed to an
adjournment and that the Company would consider the possibility of
movement within the scales. No progress was made and on 15th
June, 1987 the Union referred a dispute over the establishment of
new wage scales to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
A conciliation conference was held on 7th August, 1987. The
Union's position was that it was prepared to negotiate a
settlement that would result in parity in the long term. The
Company's position was that while the Company was taken over by
B.G.E., it operated as an independent unit and any wage increases
would be subject to ability to pay, etc. and not parity. It had
undertaken a review of the scales but in the circumstances it was
not possible to make adjustments. As no agreement could be
reached the matter was referred on 20th August, 1987 to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 6th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) With the integration of the Company into B.G.E.,
personnel have been freely moving between both
companies. Jobs have been filled in the Company by
B.G.E. workers and engineers from this Company have
carried out work in Dublin. The result is that
engineers on B.G.E. scales have been working with
engineers on this Company's scales (details of scales
supplied to the Court). It is unreasonable that people
working for the same Company in similar grades doing
similar work should not get equal pay.
(ii) The Company have accepted justification of the claim,
without establishing parity, but have failed to get an
agreement from senior management and/or the Department
of Finance. The flexibility and responsibility of the
technical workers in this Company goes beyond that of
comparable workers in B.G.E. and to a large extent has
been accepted by the Company.
(iii) Management has argued that the Company is operating as
a separate Company and a major factor is ability to
pay. However, it cannot claim to be operating as a
separate Company when the Board of Directors has been
disbanded. The Southern Region of the Irish Gas Board
incorporates this Company.
(iv) Concession of the claim would not have a knock on
effect as the majority of other grades of workers in
this Company have higher wage scales than for those in
B.G.E. Parity of wage scales for the workers concerned
should be introduced and there should be a maximum
phasing in period for assimilation onto the new scales.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Wage and salary rates at all levels within the Company
have developed over a long period of time and have been
determined primarily by the Company's ability to pay
and comparability with salary rates for similar
positions in other gas utilities and other local
industries (with which the rates compare favourably).
By December, 1988 all workers in the Company will have
received a cumulative increase of 10.33%, arising from
the application of pay increases under the
re-organisation work agreement of 1986. Further
increases could result in the Company exceeding the
Government's pay guidelines (details supplied to the
Court).
(b) Although the Company is now a subsidiary of B.G.E. it
continues to operate as a separate commercial and
economic entity and cost centre. To continue
operations it must trade profitably and competitively.
From 1982 to 1986 the Company traded at a loss (details
supplied to the Court) and figures for the current half
year show a deficit of just under #.5m, projections to
the year end show a trading loss of #600,000 and a loss
after interest of #1.421m.
(c) It is not Company policy to have its pay rates
determined by way of parity with B.G.E., because of the
differences in the nature, role and profitability of
the companies. In many other holding companies, the
conditions of employment and wage rates are determined
in individual subsidiaries independently of other
companies in the group, based on ability to pay,
historical development of rates and commercial
performance.
(d) If the claim was conceded there would be repercussive
effects both within the Company and throughout the gas
industry. There is a need to protect existing
employment levels in the Company and to avoid any
increases in charges. Each gas utility must operate
independently based on its own situation and there can
be no cross-subsidisation. It would be irresponsible
of the Company to contemplate or countenance a claim
for parity of wages because of a common shareholder.
The Company cannot consider wage increases which it
cannot afford to pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied
that the Union has not established a sustainable basis for its
claim for parity of salary scales with B.G.E. and accordingly does
not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
19th October, 1987
U.M./J.C.