Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87929 Case Number: LCR11833 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WARD INTERNATIONAL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 25 general operatives concerning a reduction in the differential between the general operatives and craft rates.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
having regard to the terms under which the present job
classification structure was introduced, does not consider that
the Union's claim can be sustained. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87929 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11833
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WARD INTERNATIONAL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 25 general operatives
concerning a reduction in the differential between the general
operatives and craft rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1985, the Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.) was
invited to evaluate and issue a report on designated jobs within
the Company. When the evaluation was completed, draft reports in
respect of craft workers, represented by the National Engineering
and Electrical Trades' Union (N.E.E.T.U.) and general operatives
represented by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union
(I.T.G.W.U.) were published. The findings were rejected by both
unions, who lodged separate appeals. Following the issue of the
final reports in March, 1986, separate discussions took place
between the Company and both unions. The craft workers accepted
that on the basis of the report it would not be possible to
achieve a higher grading. The I.T.G.W.U. members received a #10
per week increase, regardless of whether an upgrading was
involved.
3. Subsequently the craft workers sought a similar increase in
pay. The Company rejected the claim and the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following a
number of conciliation conferences the craft workers also received
the increase. The I.T.G.W.U. claimed that as a result of the
payment to craft workers, the differential had been eroded. The
Union stated that the #10 increase had been accepted because the
craft workers had accepted that they would receive no increase on
the basis that the only way a holder of an existing job could gain
a pay increase was if that job gained more points in the review
and thus rose to a higher grade. The I.T.G.W.U. claim was
rejected by the Company and on 12th October, 1987, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. As
agreement could not be reached at a conciliation conference held
on 10th November, 1987, the dispute was referred on 8th December,
1987, to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Court hearing took place in Athlone on 9th March, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The #10 per week increase was accepted by the general
operatives on the basis that the craft workers had settled
their claim without an increase and that the increase secured
a closing of the differential. When the craft workers'
subsequent claim was referred to conciliation, the Industrial
Relations Officer proposed that they receive the same all
round increase as general operatives, which effectively
negated any progress achieved by the Union on the differential
issue.
2. It was also recommended that the craft workers should
provide the cross-skill support and co-operation sought by the
Company in the amended and re-scored job description.
However, it was overlooked that they had already accepted the
grading review. They never accepted an amended and re-scored
job description.
3. By letter dated 2nd April, 1987, to the Industrial
Relations Officer, the Company implied that a counter claim by
the I.T.G.W.U. was to be reasonably expected and that his
proposal would breach the "agreement concluded generally."
Nevertheless, the Company subsequently accepted the proposals.
The Company now says that the proposals are the same as the
agreement concluded with the general operatives. Yet in the
letter to the Industrial Relations Officer no such thing was
stated (details supplied to the Court).
4. It is clear that the craft workers received a further
increase without any reference to an enhanced job description
because they threatened industrial action. This was in breach
of the understanding given to the general operatives when they
accepted the results of the grading review.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company rejected the craft workers' claim because it
did not accept the existence of fixed differentials
particularly in the context of regrading. The Industrial
Relations Officer's proposals recognised the Company's concern
over fixed differentials. He proposed that craft workers be
treated the same as general operatives regarding the
re-grading and commits the parties to acceptance of
cross-skill support and co-ordination.
2. The proposal was drafted with an eye to the possible
implications for the general operatives. The Company's
concern in this regard were clearly set out and subsequently
raised again in correspondence with the Industrial Relations
Officer. Having regard to the clarification received, the
Company accepted the proposal. The craftworkers had already
done so.
5. 3. The Company rejects the general operatives claim on the
basis that they have already received the same increase in
full and final settlement of the grading issue and because the
agreement specifically provides a procedure for
re-classification and future reviews which has not been
invoked.
4. The Company considers that the claim is entirely without
merit. The workers in question got a substantial rise as a
result of the grading review arrangement. The current rise is
being sought on the sole basis of a leap-frogging claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
having regard to the terms under which the present job
classification structure was introduced, does not consider that
the Union's claim can be sustained. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
28th April, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.