Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88626 Case Number: LCR12057 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AMALGAMATED WHOLESALERS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims by the Union for the creation of a new grade 3 and long service increments for clerical staff.
Recommendation:
5. Introduction of a further grade
The Court is of the opinion that the introduction of such a grade
is not warranted and recommends that the workers concerned accept
the ex gratia payment informally offered by the Company in
settlement of the claim.
Long Service Increments
The Court does not reconmmend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88626 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12057
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AMALGAMATED WHOLESALERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for the creation of a new grade 3 and long
service increments for clerical staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is involved in the wholesale distribution of
groceries and hardware is a branch of the Brooks Watson Group,
which in turn is wholly owned by Irish Distillers Limited. There
are currently two clerical grades in the Company, Grade 1 and
Grade 2. In 1987, four members of the clerical staff were
informed that they would not henceforth be awarded special pay
increases over and above the general percentage increase agreed
for the wage round. The Union claimed that this was a departure
from normal practice, as the workers concerned had been promised
annual reviews by management to compensate for the additional
duties and responsibilities undertaken by them. The Unions', on
behalf of the workers, sought the establishment of a grade 3 for
these workers. The proposed new grade would carry a 25%
differential over grade 2. In addition to the establishment of a
new grade, the Union is also seeking long-service increments which
would be applied in addition to the existing scales. The
increments it seeks are as follows:
(a) 5% extra after 4 years at the top of the existing scale.
(b) 10% extra after 8 years at the top of the existing scale.
(c) 15% extra after 12 years at the top of the existing
scale.
The Company rejected both claims. It rejected claim 1 on the
grounds that there was no agreement that the staff concerned would
continually get increases over and above the generally agreed wage
round in the Company. With regard to claim 2, the Company
responded that it was not in a position to concede the claim for
reasons of competivity. Agreement could not be reached at local
level, and on 12th April, 1988, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 21st April, 1988, and again on 27th June,
1988. Agreement was not reached, and on 10th August, 1988 the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 9th
September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the creation of a grade 3 to cater
for those workers who have responsibilities which are clearly
superior to those of grade 2. The Union seeking a 25%
differential, which it believes is a fair assessment of the
differences involved. There are only four workers immediately
concerned. These workers have been given special increases in
the past, a clear acknowledgement of the extra duties they are
required to perform. The Company unilaterally declared that
these special reviews and increases would cease. This is
completely unacceptable. The implementation of a grade 3
would relieve both the Company and the workers of the
necessity for reaching individual agreements each year.
2. The fact that the Company has sought to settle the matter
by means of ex-gratia payments is further indication of the
justice of the Union claims (details supplied to the Court).
This attempt to do deals at local level with the individuals
concerned has only increased the workers confusion and
frustration. The most logical and equitable solution is the
implementation of a grade 3, and the Union request the Court
to so recommend.
3. The introduction of long service payments is necessary in
order to give an incentive to those who have served the
Company for very long periods. The first stage of the
payments envisaged would only be paid when the individual
concerned had reached the top of the existing scales and had
served in that position for four years. The Union envisages
two further 5 percent increases at 4 year intervals. After 24
years of service the highest possible income would be #221.54
per week at current levels. The Union considers that this
rate of pay should be justified without reference to anything
else except the cost of living.
4. At the moment nobody in the Company would be eligible for
the long-service rate, and the Company would have an interval
of 2 years before the first payment would be made. Concession
of the claim would provide the workers with an aspiration
which would motivate them for the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company never agreed that the staff concerned in the
Unions' claim would continually get increments above the
normal wage increases. It is acknowledged that the staff
concerned were paid increments above the top point of the
Grade 11 scale. The fact that this anomaly exists however,
does not warrant the creation of a Grade 3. The creation of a
third scale is not warranted, as the duties and
responsibilities of the staff concerned are no greater than
those of Grade II staff.
2. There would be serious implications for the Company if
this claim was conceded. Firstly, there would be further
expectations created among local staff which could not be met.
Also because the Company is part of a Group, there would be
the possibility of knock-on effects because of the
expectations created.
3. With regard to the claim for long service increments the
Company must point out that such payments do not exist in any
company of the Group. The repercussions of conceding this
claim would be very serious for the Company. It would have
major cost increasing effects. The Company is in competition
with other major multiples, and concession of the claim would
have immediate detrimental effects on its ability to compete.
The Company believes that there is not justification for the
Union claims and asks the Court to recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Introduction of a further grade
The Court is of the opinion that the introduction of such a grade
is not warranted and recommends that the workers concerned accept
the ex gratia payment informally offered by the Company in
settlement of the claim.
Long Service Increments
The Court does not reconmmend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
6th October, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.