Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88809 Case Number: LCR12286 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KITCHEN ACCESSORIES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the introduction of a salary scale structure.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, has considered the submissions made and information
concerning current salary and other bonuses paid by the Company.
Whilst salary scales may be an over elaborate structure for the
small group concerned they are entitled to salaries at levels
which reflect their potential earnings when compared to salary
scales paid to workers in similar employments.
The Court recommends that the parties negotiate directly taking
the above factors as a basis for settlement of the claim. The
Court would further recommend that such negotiations be assisted
by an Industrial Relations Officer.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88809 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12286
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KITCHEN ACCESSORIES LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the introduction of a salary scale structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the Gowan Group and is involved in the
importation and wholesale distribution of kitchen appliances and
accessories. The Company's method of payment of wages to its
workforce is by way of an annual review and a discretionary bonus
payment to each worker. Since December, 1987 the Union has been
involved in discussions with the Company regarding the
introduction of a salary structure for its members who include
administrative, sales, and operative grades. During local
discussions the Union proposed the following five grade structure
with five increments in each grade.
Grade 1 Senior Administrator #8,500 - #11,500
Grade 2 Credit Controller
Warehouse Supervisor #7,000 - #10,000
Grade 3 Sales Clerk
Computer Input
Stores Clerk
Storesperson #6,000 - #8,500
Grade 4 Receptionist/
Telephonist #5,000 - #7,500
Grade 5 General Stores Duties #5,000 - #7,000
Rates not inclusive of the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.).
The Company however is unwilling to agree to the introduction of a
salary scale as it wishes to retain discretion in relation to the
paying of increases and bonus which it contends should be based on
performance. As no agreement could be reached in discussions at
local level the dispute was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 18th August, 1988. A conciliation
conference was held on the 10th October, 1988 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 25th October, 1988. A
Labour Court hearing was held on the 17th November, 1988. The
hearing was adjourned in order that the parties might have further
discussions on the issues involved. A further Court hearing took
place on the 6th January, 1989. At this hearing the Company
requested (and the Court agreed to) a further adjournment in order
that it might be given the opportunity to join the Federated Union
of Employers and be represented by them. A resumed Court hearing
was held on the 20th January, 1989. The Company requested a
further adjournment in order to continue its talks with the Union
and the F.U.E. The Court refused this request and stated that it
would issue its recommendation in due course.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have, up to the present time, had their wages
adjusted by way of annual review. This review was intended to
encompass both the cost of living and the normal annual
progression but in fact the level of these reviews fall far
short of these objectives. The Union acknowledges that the
total number of staff is small and therefore a very elaborate
salary structure is not necessary. However the Union insists
that a suitable method be devised in order to establish
reasonable minimum rates, provide for the cost of living
adjustment, and provide for normal incremental progression.
The Union has put forward various suggestions to the Company
in relation to a salary structure, however after negotiations
lasting twelve months the Company has not responded in a
positive manner.
2. The Company is a small but very successful one. It has a
level of productivity and interchangeability from its staff
which maximises on their contribution. However, the staff,
not withstanding that contribution, are not (as Management see
it) worthy of a reasonable pay structure. The workers'
interests can only be promoted properly in the context of a
salary structure that provides for (i) the cost of living
adjustment, (ii) progression in a salary scale that reflects
the value of each job and (iii) provides for a realistic
current value on each job, having regard to the incumbent's
service and relevant experience.
4. In the context of the P.N.R. the cost of living issue will
take care of itself provided there is a suitable structure to
which it can be applied. Management led the Union to believe
in previous negotiations that they would conclude an agreement
with the Union on grades and scales but in the final analysis
have refused to do so. They equally refuse to identify how
staff are to progress from the current salaries to what could
reasonably be described as a 'rate for the job.' In the
course of local negotiations and at conciliation the Union
suggested a three tier structure but management insisted that
it would take at least a five tier structure to accommodate
the range of jobs.
5. The Union have put forward a salary scale (pre P.N.R.) to
accompany that five tier structure (details supplied to the
Court). All of the existing salaries allowing for modest
adjustments are at or above the minimum of the appropriate
grade. The scales suggested by the Union are far from being
satisfactory in the minds of members, and represent the very
minimum acceptable in a pre P.N.R. situation, this also
assumes suitable assimilation.
6. The Union is putting a realistic value on each post as
follows (a) The base grade job is for a storeperson (Grade 5).
It suggests a maximum after six years of #7000 (#134.62) which
is within the norms for a job of this kind. The basic rate in
a cross section of employment is approximately #150.00 (b) The
receptionist telephonist (Grade 4) is another base grade job
and the Union propose a modest scale of #5,000 - #7,500. The
present incumbent is on a salary of #5,500 after one year with
the Company and approximately five years previous work
experience. Research indicates that the average scale for a
receptionist/telephonist is #5,500-#9,500. (c) For the credit
controller post the Union has suggested a scale of #7,000 -
#10,000, while its research shows that a similar post in
industry is #7,000 - #11,000. The present incumbent who has
years of external experience and four years with the Company -
is on a salary of #7,732.
6. The Union has identified three posts which could be
regarded as pivotal in that they bear direct comparison with
external employments. If a solution could be found for these
posts, all the others would logically slot in. The parties
are already agreed on the relative value in terms of the job
content of each of the posts. The Union claims that the
scales requested should be conceded (pre P.N.R.), that the
operative date be 1st January, 1988 and that the staff be
assimilated onto the scale having regard to their experience
internally and externally.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was founded in 1981 and currently employs 16
people. It is engaged in an expansion programme and is moving
to a new premises. It has been the policy of the Company
since 1981 to award salary increases on an annual basis on
January, 1st of each year. This salary review has always
taken into consideration a cost of living adjustment and an
annual progression/merit review. The rate of inflation was
always used as a guideline in establishing the cost of living
factor.
2. At a meeting between Management and the Union on the 27th
January, 1988 the Company acceded to a Union request and
gave details of the two elements making up the salary
increase. At a further meeting between the parties the
Company conceded that annual leave be increased from nineteen
to twenty days. At the next meeting the Union requested that
a structured progression rate be established in the Company.
The Company stated their policy of not having structured
progression rates and their wish to continue with the system
of awarding annual progression/merit increases. The Company
offered to review individual base rates if there was a
grievance.
3. At subsequent meetings the Company agreed to raise the
basic rates of three employees (two by #500 p.a. and one by
#240 p.a.) and undertook to award a minimum all round pay
increase on the 1st January, 1989 at the rate of inflation
plus one per cent, and in the case of the credit controller,
to review the bonus. For the Court's information, the Company
has enclosed details of all rates of pay and recent salary
increases. The Company implemented the first phase of the
P.N.R. on 1st January, 1988 and the second phase on the 1st
January, 1989. In addition, to the terms of the P.N.R. each
member of staff received a discretionary performance based
bonus payment. This bonus is calculated on an individual
basis and was in place prior to the implementation of the
P.N.R. This bonus arrangement is preferred by the Company
rather than an automatic incremental salary increase.
4. The implementation of a salary scale and the subsequent
assimilation of staff on to the scale is a cost increasing
claim and is therefore disallowed under clause 4 of the P.N.R.
The increases which have been implemented by the Company since
1st January, 1989 range from 4% to 18% and have brought wage
rates paid by the Company into line with other comparable
employments.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, has considered the submissions made and information
concerning current salary and other bonuses paid by the Company.
Whilst salary scales may be an over elaborate structure for the
small group concerned they are entitled to salaries at levels
which reflect their potential earnings when compared to salary
scales paid to workers in similar employments.
The Court recommends that the parties negotiate directly taking
the above factors as a basis for settlement of the claim. The
Court would further recommend that such negotiations be assisted
by an Industrial Relations Officer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
20th February, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.