Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8940 Case Number: LCR12356 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THEO BENNING IRELAND GMBH - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for an increase in the basic pay of two technicians.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the duties and responsibilities of the two
technicians concerned the Court recommends that their existing
rates be increased by #20 per week.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8940 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12356
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THEO BENNING IRELAND GMBH
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in the basic pay of two technicians.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as production technicians
and have five and three years service respectively with the
Company. Their duties involve supervision, quality control,
training, product testing, preparation of weekly production sheets
and completion of progress reports, stock control in co-operation
with stores, and the setting up of production lines for new
products. Both employees have appropriate technical
qualifications. Their current weekly wages are #181.94 and
#171.54. The Union states that the workers wages do not reflect
their duties and responsibilities and is claiming an increase
which would give them gross earnings of #14,500 per annum. The
Company made an offer to increase the workers weekly wages to
#195. This offer was rejected by the Union. Local discussions
failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 13th October,
1988. A conciliation conference was held on the 2nd November,
1988 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 17th
January, 1989. A Court hearing was held in Wexford on the 1st
March, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The position of technician as described in the workers
contract of employment (details supplied to the Court) would
suggest very responsible positions with managerial or
supervisory status. The salary paid by the Company does not
reflect the importance of their positions, let alone recognise
the skills and talents of the present job holders.
Management have ignored the capabilities and qualifications of
these workers who apparently have no promotional prospects as
they have been overlooked on several occasions when
promotional positions became available (details supplied to
the Court). It would appear from the action being taken by
Management that the workers are no longer required, as they
have probably outlived their usefulness within the Company,
and perhaps if they are ignored for long enough they will
leave.
2. The workers have been employed by the Company for a number
of years and have quite a good idea of all the products being
manufactured by the Company. They are obviously aware of the
Company's need to progress and expand within its own
marketplace by ensuring efficiency, improvements to existing
products, or introducing new products. The Company does not
appear to want to utilise the talents of the technicians which
could only be beneficial, instead they have made appointments
from outside. This course of action is difficult to
understand considering the talent that is available within the
existing workforce. The attitude of Management towards the
technicians has done nothing to enhance the workers'
opportunity for career development and has probably hindered
them due to the lack of interest by the Company in providing
or arranging courses on updating new techniques etc.
3. In some other factories in the immediate vicinity, general
operatives and semi-skilled workers are earning far more than
these technicians. The rates of pay paid to the two workers
do not compare realistically with rates paid in other
companies to technicians performing similar type jobs and
carrying similar responsibilities. In fact some lesser
positions carry higher rates of pay, and provide pension, sick
pay schemes, company car, expenses and other incentives. This
Company does not provide for any of these additional schemes
despite the low pay in this case. Management have indicated
that although they recognise that higher wage rates apply to
technicians in other employments they were concerned about
giving any significant increase on the basis that it could
have a repercussive effect. This claim has been discussed
openly at a general meeting and the other employees in the
Company have agreed with the claim on the basis that it is a
justifiable one. There is no intention to pursue any further
claim if this one is successful. The Union is claiming a
suitable rate of pay which adequately reflects the duties,
responsibilities, skills and talents of those two valuable
employees, who in their day to day duties perform most
important tasks for which they should be suitably remunerated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The two workers are employed by the Company as technician
chargehands and their duties include responsibility for
quality and output of the production lines. Line performance
at present is at seventy per cent of the minimum target, i.e.
thirty per cent below minimum workers' standard. It is
Company policy to review the performance of its technicians in
January of each year. In 1988 one of the employees concerned
did not receive an extra increase in pay because of his poor
performance. The other worker, who carried out his duties in
a satisfactory manner received an extra ten pounds per week.
2. The employee who did not receive an increase in pay was
spoken to on numerous occasions by Management with regard to
his poor performance in 1988 and was given a written warning.
The quality of this employee's work was also a big problem
with a thirty per cent rejection rate on filters. On two
occasions, because of high reject rates, the Company was
advised that these products could possibly be manufactured in
Germany in the future.
3. The rate of pay being sought ranges from #13,500 to
#14,000 per annum, an increase of forty two per cent. The
Company has offered a basic rate of pay of #200 per week, an
increase of ten per cent. This offer, if accepted would have
brought them nearer to the top scale in relation to other
companies in the south east.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the duties and responsibilities of the two
technicians concerned the Court recommends that their existing
rates be increased by #20 per week.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
21st April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.