Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88475 Case Number: LCR11998 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORK GAS COMPANY - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union for the re-grading of 5 workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that they appoint an assessor to examine and
report on the grading of the claimants within the structure of the
Cork Gas Company. In the event of it not being found possible to
agree an assessor the Court is prepared to nominate a person for
them to appoint.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88475 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11998
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORK GAS COMPANY
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the re-grading of 5 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. A re-organisation took place in the Company in 1985 in line
with Labour Court Recommendation No. 9686. The Union claims that
as a result of this re-organisation the level at which a number of
workers, i.e. two Assistant Engineers, two Draughtspersons and one
Engineering Administrator operate is anomalous and the workers
should be re-graded. In 1985, the Union made a claim for parity
with Bord Gais Eireann, this was the subject of a Labour Court
hearing in 1987 (L.C.R. No. 11471 refers) at which the claim was
rejected. The Union's position is that if parity had been
established the present claim to resolve anomalies in the scales,
which was also at issue in 1985, would have been resolved.
Further local discussions took place in 1988 at which the Company
rejected the claim and the Union gave notice of industrial action.
This was withdrawn pending discussions and on 15th April, 1988 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 4th May, 1988. In
June, 1988 the Company requested that the matter be referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 27th July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union submitted this claim to rectify outstanding
anomalies which management have accepted on numerous occasions
since 1985. As a result of L.C.R. No. 9686 there was a
commitment to resolve all outstanding claims as a matter of
urgency. Apart from this claim and one other all other
outstanding claims for workers in the Company have been dealt
with. This claim would have been resolved if parity with Bord
Gais Eireann had been established but despite this the claim
still stands on its own merits.
2. As the Union anticipated that the Company would argue that
the National Plan prevented this claim from being pursued the
26th wage round was accepted conditionally (details supplied
to the Court).
3. The Company has indicated at local level that it accepts
that anomalies exist but the Union understands that the Board
turned down the claim not on the merits of the case but on the
basis of a letter from the relevant Department. The Union is
not seeking a change in the scales in the Company but a change
in the placement of the workers on the scales.
3. Due to the difficulties involved in discussing individual
cases for grading at this level the Union is prepared to
accept the appointment of an assessor to examine the case.
The Court should either refer the matter back to local
discussions with a positive recommendation or alternatively
appoint an assessor or arbitrator to resolve the problem.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's financial position would be worsened by
concession of this claim which would endanger the future
viability of the Company and the long-term employment
prospects of all workers. It is also contrary to the
Programme for National Recovery provisions in relation to
"further cost increasing claims" in the context of the
Company's ability to pay. There would also be repercussive
claims from some if not all other workers within the Company
and in other gas utilities. The Labour Court in L.C.R. No.
11783 rejected a similar claim involving another Company.
2. In 1984/85 due to severe financial difficulties it was
necessary for the Company to implement a substantial
rationalisation and re-organisation plan which was put in
place in line with L.C.R. No. 9686. In return for this
re-organisation payment of a three-phased salary increase of
10% was made to all workers. The Union's claim that this
re-organisation resulted in anomalies in the grading structure
is incorrect.
3. The Union is, in effect, asking the Court to evaluate the
grading of the posts concerned and to recommend on their
appropriate level within the Company structure. However, the
Company is satisfied that, in the circumstances and in
particular taking into account the grading structure generally
within the Company, the posts are correctly graded. If an
assessment were to be carried out this should evaluate the
position within this Company and not in relation to B.G.E.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that they appoint an assessor to examine and
report on the grading of the claimants within the structure of the
Cork Gas Company. In the event of it not being found possible to
agree an assessor the Court is prepared to nominate a person for
them to appoint.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
16th August, 1988 Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.