Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88489 Case Number: LCR12013 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROADSTONE GROUP - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 28 clerical workers and sales representatives concerning the non-payment of an annual increment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company pay the increments due
to workers who are entitled to them under the provisions of the
incremental salary scale, subject to the criteria which usually
apply to the payment of such increments.
Insofar as the Court has already twice recommended that the
parties negotiate on changes required by the Company, it is of the
opinion that yet a further recommendation to this effect would be
superfluous.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88489 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12013
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROADSTONE GROUP
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 28 clerical
workers and sales representatives concerning the non-payment of an
annual increment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Group, operates a common incremental date of 1st January,
each year for clerical and sales staff. The Group since 1986,
have been trying to negotiate changes in the pay and conditions of
employment of these grades but with no success, despite a Labour
Court Recommendation in its favour (LCR10,597 refers). In 1988,
the Group because of the Unions refusal to negotiate changes,
withheld the payment of annual increments. This affected 28
workers out of approximately 100 workers in these grades (the
majority of workers because of non-recruitment for a number of
years are already on the maximum of the scales). The Union
claimed that payment of all increments due should be made. The
Group formally terminated the Comprehensive Agreement with the
Union, with effect from the 3rd October, 1986, and by so doing
takes the view that it no longer has any obligation to pay further
increments. On the 25th March, 1988, the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 23rd June, 1988, and
on 28th June, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 25th August, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The existence of a salary scale pre-supposes a committment
by the Group to progress an employee through the scale,
subject only to a satisfactory performance. The Labour Court
has consistently defended the right of an employee to his/her
increment, subject only to performance criteria. The Court
has refused that increments should be paid even where cost of
living increases had to be deferred or foregone altogether.
3. When the employees were recruited and/or promoted it was
part of their contract of employment that they be paid a
certain salary scale. This must be honoured by the Group.
4. There is also a very serious element of discrimination
inherent in the management proposal in that a minority of
staff will find themselves doing identical work with the
majority of their colleagues but for considerably less pay.
With the very serious reduction in staff numbers every
employee is now required to be even more flexible and this
requires the highest possible motivation. The Group's
attitude on the increments is very likely to be counter
productive.
5. The Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) is also a
factor to be considered. Employers, the Government and trade
unions have brought together an agreement designed to achieve
a number of objectives, not the least of which is a good
industrial relations climate. Unions are very restricted in
the improvement they can aspire to; surely the corollary of
that on the employer side is that all existing agreements
particularly in matters such as increments should be honoured.
The P.N.R. was ratified in November, 1987 and all developments
after that date are subject to to the spirit and letter of the
P.N.R. The Group in this instance with-held the increment in
January, 1988.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are now no agreements covering the conditions of
employment of clerical staff and sales representatives between
the Group and the Union. The disputes procedure is extant.
2. In 1988, the Group agreed to pay the P.N.R. from 1st
January, 1988, if the Union agreed changes in conditions. The
matter was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on 28th June,
1988. The Court recommended that the Union accept the Group's
offer (LCR11924 refers). The Union has accepted the
recommendation on behalf of the sales representatives and
unionised executives, but has rejected the same recommendation
on behalf of the clerical staff.
3. The Group believes that the Union should accept the Labour
Court's recommendations and sit down with the Group and
negotiate changes, including the payment of increments, needed
to bring the Group's administration costs into line with
competitors.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company pay the increments due
to workers who are entitled to them under the provisions of the
incremental salary scale, subject to the criteria which usually
apply to the payment of such increments.
Insofar as the Court has already twice recommended that the
parties negotiate on changes required by the Company, it is of the
opinion that yet a further recommendation to this effect would be
superfluous.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
5th September, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.