Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88338 Case Number: AD8840 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CHUBB (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANAGEMENT SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 211/87 concerning the salary scale of two workers.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
be amended as follows:-
Miss M. Lanigan - Payment of scale C12 from 1st April, 1987.
Miss Murphy - Payment of the salary scale as recommended.
The Court does not consider that an ex-gratia
payment is justified.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88338 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4088
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CHUBB (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 211/87 concerning the salary scale of two
workers.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The two employees, have been in dispute with the Company about
the question of their correct salary scales since 1987. The
disputes could not be resolved in discussions at local level and
were referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation on the 21st January, 1988. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation however was not accepted by the
Company who appealed it to the Labour Court, under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the 22nd April, 1988. A
Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd June, 1988.
3. CLAIM (1) Salary scale of a worker:
BACKGROUND:
The employee joined the Company from an employment agency in
March, 1986 and in June, 1986 was appointed to the permanent post
of 'Secretary to a Department', Her contract of employment stated
that her salary was £8,200 per annum, and this was to be reviewed
in April, 1987. At the time the employee joined the Company there
were two salary scales operating, one for employees on an age
related scale and the other scale which had four grades, A, B, C,
D, provided for increments based on service (details of both
scales supplied to the Court). The starting salary for the
employee was on the C scale appropriate to her position in the
Company.
Early in 1987 the employee approached the Company and requested
that she be put on salary scale C12. She was unhappy with her
current salary and was under the impression that her starting
salary would have been in the region of £9,000 per annum. Despite
various discussions with the Company, she received a final 'take
it or leave it' offer of £8,650 with a review on 1st April, 1987.
The employee because she wished to remain in the Company signed
the agreement still indicating her unhappiness with the salary.
She asked the Union to intervene on her behalf. Various
discussions took place at local level but as no agreement was
reached the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 21st January, 1988 the
Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"..I recommend that Marian Lanigan be paid a salary of
£9,000 per annum from June, 1986 and that effective
from the 1st April, 1987 her salary should be
£10,289.05. "
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. In March, 1986 at the first interview with the Company the
employee was advised that the scale employed by the Company
for someone with her experience (15 years) was £9,000, and
that the position was to be on a permanent basis. However the
employee was employed on a temporary basis until June, 1986
and when her contract of employment was drawn up the starting
salary was shown as £8,200 per annum.
2. The employee rejected the contract on the grounds that
there was a very large discrepancy in the salary and asked the
Company to reconsider same. She was informed that the Company
was very happy with her work and felt that she was suitable
for the position. However if she did not accept the
conditions then the Company would re-advertise the position.
The employee because she liked her job signed an agreement
with a final offer of £8,650 indicating that she was still
unhappy with the salary.
3. It should be noted that during the months while the worker
awaited the contract to be drawn up, she had offers from the
employment agency for other positions and turned them down as
she was happy where she was, enjoyed her work and anticipated
her income to be £9,000 per annum - all of which decided her
to remain with the Company. Despite the fact that a review
was promised in 1987 none was forthcoming.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the employee was hired a salary was agreed with her
as was the basis for her next review. The salary was within
the range for the job and reflected her past experience.
Increments under the Union scale are based on service with the
Company and its offer to move the employee on to scale C10
more than meets the commitment made to the claimant when she
joined the Company.
5. 2. There is no basis in accepted practice in the Company or
in the negotiated agreement why the employee should be placed
at a higher point on the scale, and other employees with
longer service would be upset by a change in practice. Had
the Company acceded to the claimant's aspiration of £9,000
upon joining the Company then she would either have been on
the first scale at its highest point or she would have been on
scale C9 had she entered the 2nd scale. How then can the
employee claim the C12 scale given that the service scale is
service related, and that she had approximately nine months
service at the time of joining the Union and making her claim.
3. With regard to the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
the Company would suggest to the Court that within the meaning
of Section 13(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 the
Rights Commissioner must only investigate the trade dispute
referred. The trade dispute in this case was a claim for C12
backdated to the 1st April, 1987, and the Union on behalf of
the claimant set the parameters to the claim. For the Rights
Commissioner to recommend upon something not referred is to
act 'ultra vires'. It is not for him to recommend outside the
limits of the claim before him. The claimant sought C12 with
retrospection. The Rights Commissioner has recommended upon a
claim which was never placed before him.
6. CLAIM (2) Salary scale of a worker:
BACKGROUND:
1. The worker concerned joined the Company in 1973 and is
secretary to the Director of the Lock and Safe Division. Although
she was not a member of a union she was generally paid in line
with an agreed salary scale in suceeding years (details supplied
to the Court). The employee joined the Union in 1987 and sought
the maximum of the agreed top scale, Grade D13, plus a payment of
three hundred pounds per annum in excess of the top of the scale.
The employee also claimed parity with the Company's assistant
credit controller who when employed a year previously had been
paid £700.00 per annum more than the claimant. The Company and
the Union have an agreed pay scale which allots the same grade
(Grade D) to the categories of assistant credit controller and
secretary to a director). The Company rejects the claim. As no
agreement was reached at local level the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the
21st January, 1988 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"..I recommend that Chubb Alarm place Colette Murphy
effective from the 1st April, 1987 on the maximum
point of the D salary scale i.e. 11,103.29 per annum.
I recommend that Colette accepts this and that the
understanding which she genuinely believed to herself
to be in receipt of concerning the holding of a
differential equivalent to £300 per annum above the
maximum point of the scale should be dealt with as
follows. Colette Murphy to receive an ex-gratia sum
of £750.00 from Chubb Limited and that this is
accepted by her in extinction of the undertaking
which she genuinely held herself to have received in
1981."
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. It is clear from the details already supplied to the Court
that the employee since 1980 onwards made claims based on
non-union membership, parity with a specific position, and
membership of the Union. The Company is prepared to concede
to the claimant the position of D13 effective from 1st April,
1987. It is not prepared to pay £300.00 in excess of 13D.
The claimant was not paid in excess of her parity claim when
it was conceded. The claim presented to the Rights
Commissioner on 21st January, 1988 was one of parity with a
person she believed to hold the position of assistant credit
controller.
2. The Company does not have an assistant credit controller.
Therefore her claim must fail. Furthermore D13 would give her
parity with an assistant credit controller. The claimant as a
member of the Union is being paid in accordance with the grade
and scale point agreed for the position she holds. Since 1980
the various salary scales have been rationalised therefore
there can be no basis whatsoever for any ex-gratia payment.
There was no claim in respect of a previous differential
before the Rights Commissioner. Therefore it is not open to
him (especially since it is clearly acknowledged in his
finding, that a rationalisation had taken place) to make an
award in respect of a claim not referred.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The employee requested that her salary be adjusted to
equate with that of the assistant credit controller who has
been paid a salary some £700.00 per annum higher than her own
salary. The Company agreed to discuss this matter at
executive level.
2. The Company subsequently advised the employee that she
would not be placed on the same salary scale as that of
assistant credit controller because the Company judged that
the position of assistant credit controller was more important
and responsible one than that of director's secretary and
therefore commanded a higher salary.
8. 3. The Company had assured the employee over the years that
she would be kept at least £300.00 ahead of the highest grade.
In 1985 the employee requested that her salary be brought in
line with that of her opposite number in the alarms division
which at that time was £500.00+ ahead of her own and this was
done. Since the last wage agreement (April, 1987) the
assistant credit controller is now getting approximately
£1,000.00 more than the secretary to a director. With each
new wage agreement the differential will be increasing between
these two categories. The assistant credit controller has
been with the Company approximately one year, this employee
has 16 years' service, and is in fact the longest-serving
female employee with the Company in Ireland. The assistant
credit controller reports to the credit controller who reports
to the financial director. This worker reports directly to
director - physical security.
4. The financial director has since verbally agreed that in
future he will adhere to the pay scale as agreed to with the
Union. Nevertheless the precedent has been set, the anomaly
is there, the difference in service between these two people
is 15 years. This differential discriminates against the
secretary to director. The employee disputes the executive
decision that the job of assistant credit controller is more
important and responsible. The Company cannot possibly regard
it as so if they have in a prior agreement which categorised
them as being of equal value. This differential has existed
now for 1½ years and retrospection is therefore requested.
DECISION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
be amended as follows:-
Miss M. Lanigan - Payment of scale C12 from 1st April, 1987.
Miss Murphy - Payment of the salary scale as recommended.
The Court does not consider that an ex-gratia
payment is justified.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___14th___July,___1988. ___________________
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman