Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87921 Case Number: LCR11695 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CARGO EQUIPMENT LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION;UNION OF MOTOR TRADE, TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES |
Claim on behalf of six craftsmen for:- (a) parity of pay between craftsmen, and (b) transfers from North Wall to South Bank.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) - Parity of Pay Between Craftsmen:
10. In the opinion of the Court the extra rate should be regarded
as 'red circled' and the Court does not, therefore, recommend
concession of the claim.
Claim (b) - Transfers from North Wall to South Bank:
11. The Court is not satisfed that a major disparity in earnings
exists but if one should arise then the common roster for Sunday
standby (as provided for in Clause 7 of the Productivity Bonus
Scheme) should be introduced.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87921 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11695
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO EQUIPMENT LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
UNION OF MOTOR TRADE, TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of six craftsmen for:-
(a) parity of pay between craftsmen, and
(b) transfers from North Wall to South Bank.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. Dublin Cargo Equipment Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Dublin Cargo Handling Limited (DCH). The Company was incorporated
in 1984 for the purpose of providing and maintaining mechanical
handling plant machinery operated by DCH in the Deep Sea Section
of Dublin Port. The Company has an "Industrial Agreement" which
has been in operation since May, 1984. This agreement was amended
in 1985 subsequent to a Labour Court Recommendation to include the
"Productivity Bonus Scheme."
3. The Unions served two claims on the Company, one for pay
parity for craftsmen and the other for rotation of craftsmen
between the North Wall and the South Bank. No agreement could be
reached at local level discussions on these claims and they were
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
basis for a settlement was reached at a conciliation conference
held on 15th June, 1987 and in September, 1987 the parties
requested a referral to the Labour Court. Due to an
administrative problem the case was not referred to the Court
until early December. A Court investigation into the dispute was
held on 17th December, 1987.
Claim (a) - parity of pay between craftsmen:
Background:
4. There are six craftsmen employed by the Company. Five are on
a rate of #206.95 per week while the sixth receives #214.88. The
Unions are seeking an increase in pay for the five craftsmen to
bring them into line with the sixth. The Company rejected this
claim.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The craftsman on the higher rate does not have any
additional duties or responsibilities to warrant a higher rate
of pay.
2. The principle that craftsmen working for the same
employer under like conditions should receive the same rate of
pay is well established throughout industry.
3. The higher rate originated as a heavy welding allowance.
All the craftsmen can now undertake this duty.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In acknowledgement of this anomaly the Company has
offered to buy out the differential. This offer was rejected
by the Unions.
2. The Company feels that this situation is being used as a
mechanism for a general wage claim as there would undoubtedly
be claims from the foremen and helpers for a restoration of
differentials.
Claim (b) - transfers from North Wall to South Bank:
Background:
7. There are four craftsmen located on the North Wall and two on
the South Bank. The Unions are seeking the rotation of the
craftsmen between the two locations. The Company rejected this
claim.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. It is the majority view of the craftsmen that working
conditions and earning potential is greater on the South Bank
than on the North Wall. The Company has refused to have
interchangeability of craftsmen between the locations despite
allowing all other grades of employees this facility.
2. The Union considers that the "Industrial Agreement" and
the "Productivity Bonus Scheme" refer to manning levels and
are not intended to restrict the movement of individuals.
3. The Company has the right to transfer craftsmen from one
location to another at is own discretion.
4. If the agreements do not allow for rotation then the
Unions are seeking a change to the agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The "Industrial Agreement" states that two fitters and
two helpers would be based on the South Bank and the remainder
of the staff based on the North Wall. Subsequent to that
agreement the Unions informed the Company of their
dissatisfaction with the arrangement and sought a system of
rotation between the two locations. This dispute was resolved
by the "Productivity Bonus Scheme" with the Unions accepting
the staffing arrangement (details supplied to the Court).
2. Given full attendance, comparison of the annual gross
earnings between the North and South based staff are much the
same (details supplied).
3. From an efficiency point of view it is better to have
the workers permanently based.
4. A number of individuals working on both sides of the
river have indicated that they do not wish to work on the
other side.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) - Parity of Pay Between Craftsmen:
10. In the opinion of the Court the extra rate should be regarded
as 'red circled' and the Court does not, therefore, recommend
concession of the claim.
Claim (b) - Transfers from North Wall to South Bank:
11. The Court is not satisfed that a major disparity in earnings
exists but if one should arise then the common roster for Sunday
standby (as provided for in Clause 7 of the Productivity Bonus
Scheme) should be introduced.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
18th February, 1988 -----------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman