Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87518 Case Number: LCR11439 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AMICON LTD - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the application of pay rates to two workers.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that
the Company's offer to the two claimants should be accepted.
With regard to the employment of temporary workers the Court
recommends that negotiation take place between the parties as a
matter of urgency to agree a starting rate to be applied to such
employees in the future.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87518 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11439
CC8736 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11439
Parties: AMICON IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the application of pay rates to two
workers.
Background:
2. The Company which is located at Raheen Industrial Estate,
Limerick is a wholly owned subsidiary of an american company, and
is involved in the health care industry. The Union claims that 2
workers, Worker A and Worker B when they commenced work with the
Company were placed on incorrect rates of pay outside the normal
agreed pay structures, and that they are now due #1800 and #950
respectively in back pay. The Union claims that, by custom and
practice, stores operatives have been paid the "diafilter" rate
and that at different times, these two workers were placed on the
"membrane" rate (lowest skilled rate). The Company claims that
Worker A was not put onto full rate until mid 1986 at his own
insistence. He had been there 18 months, while the normal
probationary rate is 3 months, but he continually told the Company
he was leaving to go back to study and was only temporary. He was
offered #600 retrospection. The Company claims that Worker B was
originally a temporary worker and not entitled to the same rate as
a permanent operative (he is now permanent). They offered him
#465 retrospection. The Union strongly rejects the contention
that there is any rate for temporaries, or indeed any rate for
individuals other than the rate for the job. It sees this as
being of great importance, since the Union has always shown a
flexible attitude towards the employment of temporaries.
Agreement could not be reached at local level on the matter, and
on 6th January, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A response to the invitation was
received on the 2nd April and a conciliation conference took place
on 22nd April, 1987. Agreement was not reached and on 29th June,
1987, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Limerick on 2nd September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union negotiates rates of pay for various jobs at
Amicon. There is a great deal of co-operation and
flexibility involved by the workforce. We do not
negotiate rates due to the individual but rather
relating to the job they are doing.
(ii) The workers concerned worked to the same standards and
expectations as any new entrant to the Company.
(iii) The Union has negotiated no separate pay scale with the
Company for temporary employees. The Company's action
in this case has led to a concern that the Company
could bring people in as temporary workers in the
future to carry out any job thereby circumventing
negotiated rates for the job.
(iv) The Company did not consult with or inform the Union
representatives at any time that a new different pay
rate was going to be paid to these men.
(v) In each of the grades agreed between the Union and
Company there is allowance made for inexperience and
learning the job. Therefore, the Company has no
justifiable reason to pay lower rates.
(vi) The workforce have become very worried that the Company
would introduce some new category of worker to work
alongside them who would be paid at rates not agreed
with the Union. Should the Company's right to do so be
affirmed it is likely that our members would not
co-operate with the employment of any temporary
workers, which they have no desire to do.
(vii) The Company have pointed out to the Union that the
workers concerned accepted the rate. That could be
true of any worker entering employment, i.e. that they
would accept whatever rate was offered. That is why
there are unions who negotiate agreed rates. The
Company would seem to wish to dispense with this.
(viii) In the past the Company have in error overpaid our
members on a number of occasions. Each time that
happened every penny was repaid by the individual
without question. In this instance they have underpaid
and should be willing to make reparation in like
fashion.
(ix) Finally the Union believes that the Company have acted
in this instance, far outside the letter and the spirit
of the agreement and outside the norms of good
industrial relations. The Union request that the Court
recommends that Worker A and Worker B be paid the back
money due them based on placement on the diafilter rate
from day one.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Both men were appointed to temporary positions within
the Company and that the nature of their position was a
temporary one. Following representations from the
Union at the start of the 26th wage round which was
effective from June 1st, 1986, the Company made both of
them permanent with effect from June 30th, 1986. At
subsequent discussions the Company offered to pay them
the retrospection on the full rate with effect from
January 1st, 1986. (Worker A joined the Company in the
Summer of 1984 as a school leaver. Worker B joined in
February, 1985).
(b) The Union has not objected to the use of temporary
employees. This is to be expected as the Company has
had a custom and practice of using temporary employees
for the past number of years. However, to date there
is no agreement with the Union regarding rates of pay
which would apply to temporary employees. The
Company's position has always been that it has paid the
lowest rate of pay to temporary employees. The Company
feel very strongly that this should continue for the
reason that in certain circumstances, temporary
employees could end up being on higher rates of pay
than permanent employees, and this would give rise to
certain grievances on the part of the permanent staff
which the Company wishes to avoid. Therefore, the
Company believes that the lowest rate of pay is the
appropriate rate for temporary employment. This stems
from two principle reasons which are, a) temporary
employees are not given full versatility training, and
b) given that this is the case, the Company does not
require the same level of skill as would be required
from a permanent employee. Therefore, the Company
believes that the permanent positions should always be
paid at a higher rate than the temporary positions.
(c) Given the trading difficulties which the Company faced
in the early part of 1986, it did not see itself being
in a position to appoint the two people concerned to
permanent positions at that time. The Company
endeavoured to retain the goodwill of both employees by
backdating their rates of pay to January 1st, 1986,
despite the fact that they had only being made
permanent as of June 30th, 1986.
(d) The Company is of the opinion that it has been fair and
has made a reasonable offer, in all the commercial
circumstances. Full concession of the claim would cost
#1,804.21 in the case of Worker A and #951.60 in the
case of Worker B. The Company believes that in the
case of Worker A it was justified in keeping him
temporary for his period of service with the Company.
With hindsight it is seen that his regular statement
that he intended to return to school was borne out by
the fact that he did leave the Company's employment in
September, 1986 and returned to school. Therefore they
feel that their offer in the case of Worker A is more
than generous.
(e) In the case of Worker B it believes its offer is fair
and reasonable in the circumstances. Given the fact
that he was recruited during a period when the Company
was undergoing serious trading difficulties, and his
position was of a temporary capacity, and that these
commercial circumstances did not improve until April of
1986 it feels that its offer of retrospection to the
1st of January, 1986 should be accepted. The Company
requests a favourable recommendation from the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that
the Company's offer to the two claimants should be accepted.
With regard to the employment of temporary workers the Court
recommends that negotiation take place between the parties as a
matter of urgency to agree a starting rate to be applied to such
employees in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
28th September, 1987.
P.F./J.C.