Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88896 Case Number: LCR12248 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH FERRIES - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 60 clerical workers for an outstanding payment due under the 25th wage round.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that both parties accept that an agreement
existed which provided that the clerical staff would not be
treated less favourably than any other group in the Company who
settled their 25th round claim at a later date. The ships
officers achieved a payment of #250 over and above the general
lump sum payment of 1% of annual salary or #100, whichever was
greater. The Union sought additional payment for the clerical
staff but the dispute emerged from the differing interpretations
as to how the payment should be calculated.
The Union for its part sought the full #250 whereas the Company
calculated the payment as #133 being the same percentage increase.
There is merit in the arguments behind both methods of calculation
but in the absence of any written commitment it is likely that at
the time the undertaking was entered into neither side foresaw a
likelihood of an additional lump sum being paid.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that both sides accept a
compromise solution through the Company increasing its offer to
#175 to each of the staff involved.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88896 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12248
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH FERRIES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 60 clerical
workers for an outstanding payment due under the 25th wage round.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the terms of the 25th wage round settlement the Company
agreed to pay a lump sum payment of "#100 or 1% whichever is the
greater" to all employees. Under the agreement Ships Officers
received a lump sum payment of 1% of salary, averaging #187 per
officer, and the clerical staff received #100, (the 1% sum in most
cases worked out at less than #100). At the time it was agreed
that if any group within the Company received better terms, then
the clerical staff would receive the difference. Subsequently the
officers claimed that the 1% payment was to be on-going. This
dispute went through procedures to the Labour Court. The Labour
Court recommended in Recommendation No. 11709 that the ships
officers should receive a once-off lump sum payment of 50% of what
was already paid in full and final settlement. The officers
rejected the Court's Recommendation and agreement was subsequently
reached between the parties at local level to make a once-off
payment of #250 per officer. The Union immediately requested the
payment of the outstanding monies due, by agreement, to the
clerical staff. In August, 1988, the Company offered to pay the
clerical staff a lump sum payment on a pro-rata basis, i.e. #250
divided by #187 (average given to officers) multiplied by #100
(average given to clerical staff). This offer amounted to
#133.69. This was rejected by the Union and on 24th August, 1988,
the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held
on 7th October, 1988, and on 4th November, 1988, the issue was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 6th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At no stage has the Company denied that there was
agreement that if any group received a larger payment under
the 25th wage round then the difference would be paid to the
clerical staff. However, the Company refused to implement it.
2. In December, 1986, when the Company offered the payment of
"#100 or 1% whichever is the greater," it accepted the
principle of extra money being paid to another section.
3. The Union considers that the Company has, by not paying
the outstanding monies to the clerical staff, broken its
agreement and is acting in a discriminatory manner against the
clerical staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The offer made to the clerical staff is fair and
reasonable and complies with the commitments given. The
original agreement provided for the payment of #187 to
officers and #100 to clericals. This ratio was agreed and
accepted by the Union. It is only logical to suggest
therefore that this ratio should be maintained.
2. This offer more than equates to the officers' settlement
when expressed as a percentage of gross salary. The original
offer of 1% lump-sum was expressed as a percentage of gross
salary also. In percentage terms the clerical staff have not
been treated less favourably. The original agreement was done
on this basis as are all other wage agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that both parties accept that an agreement
existed which provided that the clerical staff would not be
treated less favourably than any other group in the Company who
settled their 25th round claim at a later date. The ships
officers achieved a payment of #250 over and above the general
lump sum payment of 1% of annual salary or #100, whichever was
greater. The Union sought additional payment for the clerical
staff but the dispute emerged from the differing interpretations
as to how the payment should be calculated.
The Union for its part sought the full #250 whereas the Company
calculated the payment as #133 being the same percentage increase.
There is merit in the arguments behind both methods of calculation
but in the absence of any written commitment it is likely that at
the time the undertaking was entered into neither side foresaw a
likelihood of an additional lump sum being paid.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that both sides accept a
compromise solution through the Company increasing its offer to
#175 to each of the staff involved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_____________________________
1st February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.