Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88749 Case Number: LCR12101 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DE REGT SPECIAL CABLE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim on behalf of a worker for compensation arising from the upgrading of supervisory grades.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the offer of #500 made by the Company to
take account of the possibility that there might have been some
confusion regarding her position, is reasonable and should be
accepted by the claimant in final settlement of her claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88749 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12101
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DE REGT SPECIAL CABLE LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for compensation arising from the
upgrading of supervisory grades.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in October,
1979 and was subsequently appointed supervisor in the Connector
Assembly Department. In January, 1983 she transferred to the
Quality Control Department which resulted in a pay increase of
#18.48 per week (from #107 to #125.00 per week). At that time
there was one other worker in the Quality Control Department also
on a rate of #125 per week and a third worker was placed in that
department late in 1983, also on the same rate of pay. During
1984 the workers in the Quality Control Department were given the
title of Quality Control Technicians. In December, 1985 a review
of the supervisors rates of pay took place and resulted in a
special increase. The present rate of pay for supervisors is #217
per week, while this worker's rate is #203 per week. The worker
subsequently made a claim for an upward adjustment to keep her
rate of pay in line with the supervisors on the basis that she
also had a supervisory status. The Company rejected this claim on
the basis that the worker is a Quality Control Technician and not
a supervisor. Local level meetings took place at which the Union
sought #2,270 compensation, which was rejected by the Company.
The Company made an offer of #500 as an ex gratia payment to
settle the dispute. This was unacceptable and on 20th May, 1988
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 27th July, 1988 at
which no agreement could be reached and on 7th October, 1988 the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 12th
October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker transferred to the Quality Control
Department there was one other worker there who was paid a
supervisors rate of #125 per week. Although there were no
other workers in this department the Company paid the
supervisors rate in recognition of the responsibilities and
skills required for the job. The worker concerned was of the
opinion that she was now on a higher supervisory rate and
maintained her supervisory position. A third worker was
employed in the department late in 1983 and was also paid the
supervisory rate.
2. The worker claims that both at the time of her transfer
and in 1984 when the workers were renamed Quality Control
Technicians, management advised her that she still retained
her supervisory status. In relation to the latter instance
the worker was told that she could confirm this by the payment
of a supervisory bonus at Christmas. The worker was paid a 5%
bonus applicable to supervisors that year and subsequent
years. There are strong grounds for the worker to have
believed that her supervisory status had not changed.
Considering that the other supervisors were upgraded in 1985
the claim for upgrading or compensation is more than
reasonable. The worker should be paid #2,270 compensation in
line with the previous Company/Union agreement (details
supplied to the Court) for dealing with such matters.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker transferred in January, 1983 to the post of
Quality Control Technician by agreement and had the option of
reverting to her position as Supervisor in the Connector
Assembly Department before the end of March, 1983 but did not
do so. By January, 1986 when the worker made this claim she
had been in receipt of the technician's rate for three years.
The Supervisor who replaced this worker in the Connector
Assembly Department received the benefits of the Supervisor's
review in December, 1985. The benefits of a supervisory
change can only apply to the holder of the post at the time of
the change.
2. The fact that a review of supervisors salaries took
place and resulted in a higher rate than the quality control
technicians does not entitle this worker or any of the other
technicians to compensation. The re-evaluation of any post
does not give a consequential entitlement to other posts and
if this was so it would conflict with the principle on
re-alignment which was the basis of the Union's claim in
December, 1985. In all the circumstances this claim should be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the offer of #500 made by the Company to
take account of the possibility that there might have been some
confusion regarding her position, is reasonable and should be
accepted by the claimant in final settlement of her claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
2nd November, 1988 --------------------
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman