Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88621 Case Number: LCR12077 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ALFA LAVAL LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of two clerical workers for a salary scale.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the submissions made the Court does not
consider the introduction of an incremental scale to be the
appropriate means of dealing with the salaries of the two workers
concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88621 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12077
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ALFA LAVAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of two clerical workers for a
salary scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned have been employed by the Company for
nine and ten years respectively and are paid salaries of #9105 and
#9064 per annum. The Union claimed that during the negotiations
for the wage round in 1987 the matter of a salary scale was raised
and that the Company agreed to deal with it in 1988. The Company
agreed that it was aware that the matter of a salary scale would
be raised in 1988, but had given no commitment to concede the
claim. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that a
salary scale was not appropriate to its pay structure. Agreement
could not be reached at local level, and on 8th April, 1988, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 17th May, 1988.
Agreement was not achieved and on 27th May, 1988, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 7th of October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the past number of years, there has been a reduction
of 20% in staff numbers in the administrative area of the
Company, with a consequent increase in workload. The Company
also introduced a computer without paying any compensation to
the staff.
2. The current weekly pay of the workers is #174.30 and
#175.09 respectively. Average clerical earnings in the
Industrial Sector up to December, 1987 was #221.83. In the
Engineering Sector the average earnings for 1988 was #226.44
(details supplied to the Court).
3. It can be clearly seen that the workers' salaries are
considerably out of line with the average for the kind of work
they perform. To further underline this point the Union has
acquired details of the salary scales operating in other
engineering companies (details supplied to the Court). The
Union believes that the workers' salaries are seriously out of
line, and that the best means of counteracting this now and in
the future is by the introduction of a salary scale. The
Union requests the Court to recommend accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has rejected the claim to apply a salary scale
for two clerical workers, because a scale structure of pay is
not appropriate to the pay structure of the Company. Before
the level of senior and middle management there are twenty
three named occupations. In the case of all of these, there
is no scale applying.
2. It is clear that to introduce a scale for the two clerical
workers would distort the pay pattern in the Company, and
would break down the present structured approach to pay. Out
of a labour force of 53 people, only two have a preference for
a pay scale.
3. The Company believes that concession of the Union's claim
would be cost increasing. Against a background where the
Company has for many years sought to reduce costs, this is
unacceptable. The Company has had to introduce several
redundancy programmes, reducing the labour force from 119 in
1980 to the present 53. In the light of these facts the
Company requests the Court to uphold its position in rejecting
the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the submissions made the Court does not
consider the introduction of an incremental scale to be the
appropriate means of dealing with the salaries of the two workers
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
25th October, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.