Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88693 Case Number: LCR12143 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BOART EUROPE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for annual increase of 3% from 1985 to 1988 inclusive for one worker, and for his assimilation on to the staff scale.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends that the Company agree to reopen its offer to
the worker to appoint him to staff status with effect from 1st
December, 1988. The Court does not recommend any retrospective
payment in respect of the period since 1985.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88693 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12143
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BOART EUROPE LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for annual increase of 3% from 1985 to 1988
inclusive for one worker, and for his assimilation on to the staff
scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1984, the Company committed itself to introducing a pay
scale for hourly paid workers, and granted an additional increase
of 3% on an interim basis. In December, 1985 the Company proposed
that all hourly paid workers be given staff status. The offer
involved assimilation onto a staff scale and a 10%
Christmas bonus not paid to hourly paid workers. The offer was
put on an individual basis, and all but the worker concerned in
this dispute accepted it. The worker claimed that the 3% interim
payment should again be paid in 1985. The Company was not
prepared to concede this, and contended that the offer of
assimilation onto staff wage scales was particularly advantageous
for this worker, because of his relative skill level. Agreement
could not be reached on the matter at local level, and on 14th
October 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences took place on 19th
March, 1987 and again on 9th August, 1988. The Union on behalf of
the worker claim that he should be paid the 3%. Agreement was not
reached and on 8th September, 1988 the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Limerick on 9th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned in this case has lost out in monetary
terms when his situation is compared both with his fellow
workers in the Tungsten Carbide division of the factory, and
also the Mining and Construction division. Once the principle
of the Company proposals had been accepted in 1984, and the 3%
paid, it should have continued until total agreement was
reached. The worker should be paid the 3% for 1985 to 1988
inclusive, and he should be offered staff status from 1st
December, 1988 on the same basis as his colleagues. The Union
asks the Court to so recommend.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Fifteen out of sixteen employees concerned in the area of
work affected by the new pay proposals accepted them. The
only refusal was the worker concerned in the dispute. The
worker declined the offer of a grade 2 under the new system,
subsequently claiming that 3% be paid to him annually from
1985 until an offer that he was prepared to accept was
provided.
2. In a package deal it is inevitable that some workers will
benefit more than others in relation to their ability. This
is the case with the worker who under normal circumstances
would not have qualified for the new grade 2 staff position.
Under the hourly paid scheme he would certainly have qualified
for a position on a much lower grade. The worker is seriously
lacking in flexibility, which he would have had difficulty in
attaining even with extended training. The offer was very
generous, with the Company meeting its obligation of providing
an incremental structure. In refusing the offer the worker
has declined the benefits and obligations associated with it.
3. The dispute was first referred to a Rights Commissioner by
the Union, and the Company were prepared to accept the ruling.
The matter was then withdrawn from the Rights Commissioner and
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Following conciliation conferences in 1987 and 1988, the
Company advised the worker that it was prepared to allow him
to transfer to salaried conditions. This was again refused.
The Company believes that it has been very patient and has
gone to great lengths to be seen to be fair. It has
overlooked the worker's external business interests which
could interfere with his obligations to the Company. The
worker was entitled to and received the general wage round
increases each year. He did not receive an annual increment
because he was not and is not entitled to it.
4. Over the past number of years, the Company has employed
people with better skills and qualifications who have
commenced at the bottom of grade 2. This has made it
increasingly difficult to keep the original offer open, or to
negotiate special conditions for an individual, as this would
be detrimental to the workforce as a whole. At the last
conciliation conference the worker was advised that the
Company's offer to him was being withdrawn, unless he accepted
it there and then. The Court are asked to reject the Union's
claim and to uphold the Company's position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties recommends that the Company agree to reopen its offer to
the worker to appoint him to staff status with effect from 1st
December, 1988. The Court does not recommend any retrospective
payment in respect of the period since 1985.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
30th November, 1988.
P.F./J.C. Deputy Chairman