Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87776 Case Number: LCR11692 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MCCARTHY & PARTNERS - and - AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TASS |
Dispute, concerning three technicians, as to the interpretation of an agreement reached at conciliation.
Recommendation:
7. The Court considers that the Union's interpretation is correct
and recommends accordingly.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87776 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11692
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
PARTIES: McCARTHY & PARTNERS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TASS)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute, concerning three technicians, as to the
interpretation of an agreement reached at conciliation.
BACKGROUND:
2. A letter dated 26th May, 1986 from the conciliation service of
the Labour Court confirmed a proposal accepted by both sides at a
conciliation conference held on 23rd May, 1986. The letter
stated, inter alia.
(a) Salaries to be reviewed for the three individuals in
question in December of each year. This to take the form
of reviewing relevant local authority scales with regard
to increases which might have been applied to those
scales and to adjust the Company's scales accordingly.
(b) On the individual incremental dates, increments to be
applied.
Disagreement arose as to the interpretation of paragraph 1 of that
agreement. The Union claims that a review of scales should apply
from December, of each year and increments should apply on an
individual's increment date. The Company's view is that only one
review of salary would take place and that would be in December of
each year. The increase would apply on the individuals
incremental date rather than on January, 1st each year as is the
Company's standard procedures.
3. On 21st July, 1987 the Union referred the matter to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 7th October, 1987 but no agreement was
reached and on 9th October, 1987 the case was referred to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 6th November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The agreement as per letter of the 26th May, 1986 which
was accepted by both sides, is unambiguous. Salaries are to
be reviewed in December, of each year with regard to
increases which might have been applied to local authority
scales and the Company scales are to be adjusted accordingly.
The Union further claims that increments should be applied on
the individual's incremental date.
2. The Company's response to the matter is at variance with
the agreement of 26th May, 1986.
3. There is an element of retrospection due on the claim.
However, in the interests of reaching a settlement, the Union
is willing to accept that retrospection for the period May,
1986 to December, 1986 will be lost.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. As settlement of this matter the Company will accept
either:
(i) The local authority salary scales payable on due
dates together with local authority mileage rates
for travel and a contributory pension;
(ii) The local authority salary scales with increments
and adjustments paid on the incremental dates
together with the Company's car allowance and
non-contributory pension arrangements as they
stand.
The agreement of 26th May, 1986 was accepted by the Company
on the basis that either (i) or (ii) above would be
implemented.
2. When the Agreement of 26th May, 1986 was being concluded
the Company objected to two separate increases being applied
to salary in one year. It was the Company's intention that
increases would be applied to salary on one date each year.
The agreement was modified to take account of the Company's
objections.
3. The Company's understanding of the Agreement was that
salaries would be reviewed only on a worker's increment date.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court considers that the Union's interpretation is correct
and recommends accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
15th February, 1988. Chairman
T.O'M/J.C.