Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88149 Case Number: LCR11806 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NACANCO - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim on behalf of eight fitters and toolmakers for pay parity with electricians.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case,
does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88149 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11806
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NACANCO
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of eight fitters and toolmakers for pay parity
with electricians.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers basic weekly rate of pay for 40 hour working week
are toolmakers £285.17, fitters £245.84. The Union is claiming
that these workers should have pay parity with electricians whose
rate of pay for a 40 working week is £295.79. The Company
rejected the claim. No agreement was reached through local
negotiations and on 10th March, 1987 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 26th November, 1987 but no agreement was
reached. On 24th February, 1988 the case was referred to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 23rd March, 1988 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company argued an agreement exists covering salary
arrangements for the workers to June, 1988. There is no
agreement, the Company imposed an arrangement which did
not address the issue of parity with electricians. This
was not acceptable to the workers hence this case is
before the Court.
2. It is established practice in Irish industry that all
maintenance craftsmen in a particular plant or industry
have a common salary scale or rate of pay.
3. The only significant benefit enjoyed by mechanical staff
is payment by the Company of V.H.I. contributions.
However, electricians are paid a bonus of comparable
value.
4. The Union does not accept that the electricians are
overpaid. The workers concerned are underpaid and are
entitled to the same rewards as the electricians.
Rationalisation of pay rates for craftsmen could not be a
legitimate basis for other claims.
5. Electricians also have the facility to avail of the
premium electrician rate which is 5% higher than the
electrician rate. A similar facility on similar
conditions should be available to toolmakers and fitters.
6. The electricians are due a further wage increase from 1st
January, 1988 which will further exacerbate the position.
7. The electricians cannot understand why such a disparity
should exist in craft rates and have no objection to its
removal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Pay differentials among craftsmen are determined primarily
on skill differences but account must also be taken of
conditions of employment such as the staff status of
toolmakers.
2. Any concession of this claim, even in part, will
undoubtedly lead to repercussive claims from other groups.
3. General considerations, such as the position of the
Company's craftsmen in comparison with other craftsmen in
manufacturing industry, clearly indicate that current
rates are very favourable and should not be increased.
4. Specific considerations, such as staff status and skill
differentials, indicate that the claim should not be
conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions in this case,
does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___21st___April,__1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman