Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88329 Case Number: LCR11941 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON & COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS |
Claims by the Group in respect of 200 craftsmen concerning:- (i) rate of pay of brewery craftsmen on promotion to leading craftsmen AND (ii) claim for an increase in the relief rate for brewery craftsmen/leading craftsmen who relieve in the supervisory group.
Recommendation:
9. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company concede to the Union claim for
increase in relief pay (Claim 2). The Court does not find
justification for recommending concession of the claim for
altering the Company's formula for applying incremental scales on
promotion.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88329 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11941
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON & COMPANY (DUBLIN) LIMITED
AND
GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Group in respect of 200 craftsmen concerning:-
(i) rate of pay of brewery craftsmen on promotion to leading
craftsmen
AND
(ii) claim for an increase in the relief rate for brewery
craftsmen/leading craftsmen who relieve in the supervisory
group.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following agreement on a new pay structure in September, 1983
a single graded structure was introduced for craftsmen and general
employees. Service pay, Christmas and Holiday bonuses were
incorporated in weekly pay, which had the advantage of making them
pensionable. The Company and the Group however have been in
dispute about the above mentioned claims. Despite numerous
meetings at local level no agreement was reached and the disputes
were referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on
the 8th January, 1988. A Conciliation Conference was held on the
13th April, 1988 but no agreement was reached. The matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 29th April, 1988. A Court hearing took place on the 14th
June, 1988.
3. CLAIM (1) Rate of pay of brewery craftsmen on promotion to
leading craftsman.
BACKGROUND:
1. Under a pay structure agreed in 1983 craftsmen receive a basic
rate of pay plus four annual increments of £2.50. Leading
craftsmen receive ten per cent extra on both the basic rate and
the increments. When acting as a leading craftsman, a craftsman
receives the differential between the basic rates in addition to
his existing basic pay plus whatever increments he has
accumulated. When promoted however he receives only the
difference between his existing wage including increments and the
minimum of the leading craftsman's rate. The Unions' claim that
this is an anomalous situation. The Company rejects the claim.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A craftsman, on promotion to a leading craftsman's
position should receive a 10% increase in wages. This 10%
"differential" was agreed with the Company and was
incorporated into the February, 1970 amendment to the 1966
Company/Union Agreement.
2. In all cases where the leading craftsman/chargehand rates
of pay are expressed as a percentage of the craft rate (e.g.
NJIC for electrical contracting, local authorities, public
service, health boards etc.) a person receives the stated
percentage increase on promotion. Where an incremental scale
for craftsman has been agreed, the percentage relationship
yields a parallel scale for chargehands. On promotion to
chargehand, a craftsman "moves sideways" to the same point on
the chargehand scale. This is not the position in the
Company. A promoted craftsman moves to the minimum point of
the new scale and as a result, the wage increase is
considerably less than 10%. The Union believes that this is
unfair and is out of line with general practice.
3. Furthermore, the said increments were agreed as a part of
a package in 1983, which bought out holidays/Christmas bonuses
and service pay. One of the main benefits outlined by the
Company was that the new package would yield payments which
would be calculable for pension purposes, which the old ones
were not. Therefore exclusion of these increments from a
persons pay on promotion wipes out the benefits that should
have pertained. As can be seen from the document setting up
the new structure (details already supplied to the Court) the
+10% relationship was maintained. Since it was impossible to
do it with the Company directly, the Unions are asking the
Court to resolve this anomaly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The craftsman's personal pay is increased on promotion to
the bottom of the leading craftsman's scale, which is ten per
cent above the craftsman's scale. The application of the four
leading craft increments in the four years following promotion
progresses the newly promoted individual to the maximum of the
leading craft scale. This is consistent with the operation of
the incremental scale. The guiding principle has been to
apply a pay increase on promotion which would be the higher of
two increments of the new grade or the published weekly rate
of pay. The only anomaly is that a craftsman receives more
than this when acting as a leading craftsman. This situation
has arisen because of a concession by the Company in the
context of the negotiations on the introduction of the
integrated pay structure for craftsmen and other categories in
1983.
2. When the Company made its offer on the new joint pay
structure in October, 1983 the current leading craftsmen
continued to carry the ten per cent above the craftsmen's
scale. In an incremental scale relativities are set at the
minimun and maximun of the scales. Individuals promoted at
different times will not necessarily have the same rate of pay
until the maximun of the scale is reached. The Company is
operating the principles of an incremental scale in relation
to promotion into the leading craftsmen's scale, in line with
all other groups in the Company who are on an incremental
scale. The rule is to apply a pay increase on promotion of
two increments of the new grade or the published weekly rate,
whichever is higher. Any breaching of those principles could
have a fundamental design consequence on the incremental
structures of the other categories in the Company.
3. The Company in the interests of establishing the new pay
structure conceded the Union's claim in 1983 in relation to
relief pay for a craftsman relieving a leading craftsman, even
though it created an anomalous situation viz.a.viz promotion,
on the basis that relief money is paid for short-time relief.
This technical breach in the Company's regulations in relation
to relief is now being used to advantage by the Unions in
order to claim the same concession for promotion. This will
have serious repercussions in the promotion regulations and
progression rules right through the supervisory group. Since
the introduction of the new joint structure in 1983, the
Unions have demonstrated an unwillingness to accept the design
features of an incremental structure by continuing to insist
on the maintenance of relativities at all points of the scale.
Indeed if this view were upheld it could have serious knock-on
effects within all other incremental scales and particularly
within the weekly paid area.
6. CLAIM (2) Claim for an increase in the relief rate for
brewery craftsmen/leading craftsmen who relieve
in the supervisory group.
BACKGROUND:
1. A craftsman or leading craftsman relieving into a foreman's
job receives two increments on a weekly basis while if relieving
into a supervisory position the craftsman receives the same
amount. The Group is claiming that this is anomalous and that a
craftsman should receive four increments for acting as a
supervisor. The Company rejects the claim.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. When a leading craftsman relieves an absent superior, he
is paid an extra allowance per day. The Group believe that
there should be a recognition of the added responsibilities of
relieving the more senior position of supervisor, as against
foreman. At present, the leading craftsman is paid the same
allowance whether he is relieving one step up or two steps up.
In the Group's opinion, the latter should be double the
former.
2. In local discussions and in response to a direct question
from the Company, the Group confirmed that there would be no
follow-on claims by the Group on foot of any perceived anomaly
arising from concession of this claim. As stated earlier, the
Company were prepared to concede this claim, but withdrew
their offer when the Group would not withdraw the other claim
before you to-day.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has been applying the formula which arose from
an arbitration recommendation in 1979 on the subject of relief
by craftsmen to foreman. Within the supevisory group itself
the agreement is that a foreman B relieving a foreman A
receives the equivalent of approximately 2 foreman increments
on a weekly basis, while a foreman B or foreman A relieving
into the supervisor B or supervisor A position receives the
equivalent of approximately 4 foreman increments on a weekly
basis.
2. At a meeting with the skilled Group on the 19th May, 1987
the Company undertook to respond to this claim. In responding
the Company required the Group to accept the current brewery
craftsman/leading craftsman relief/promotion anomaly and that
the concession would mean the creation of additional anomalous
situations (details supplied to the Court).
8. 3. The Company was bearing in mind that the Group negotiate
on behalf of the weekly paid craftsmen and the monthly paid
supervisory group and it was seeking assurances that follow-on
claims from the supervisory group would not emerge from the
creation of this anomalous situation. The Company sought
these assurances because following the introduction of the new
weekly pay structure in 1983 the craft foremen's association
represented by the Group submitted a claim on an alleged
differential erosion and sought restoration of relativities.
(Indeed this later became the subject of a Labour Court
hearing on behalf of the FWUI supervisory group who did not
accept the Company's offer).
4. At a subsequent meeting on the 28th August, 1987 the
skilled Group re-stated the two claims - (a) that a leading
craftsman must at all times be 10% above a brewery craftsman
and (b) that they were seeking an increase in the relief rate
to the supervisory group. The Company believed that a package
solution had been offered to the skilled Group in May, 1987
but the skilled Group did not accept that a package solution
was offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company concede to the Union claim for
increase in relief pay (Claim 2). The Court does not find
justification for recommending concession of the claim for
altering the Company's formula for applying incremental scales on
promotion.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
11th July, 1988.
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.