Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88396 Case Number: LCR12203 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KERRY GROUP PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for an increase in the rate of pay of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that in the circumstances of this case the
Company should improve their offer by granting to the claimant an
additional 2% in respect of a salary review for the year 1985
backdated to January, 1986.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88396 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12203
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KERRY GROUP PLC
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in the rate of pay of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The employee, who has been with the Company for many years,
works in a clerical capacity at the Group's Head Office in Tralee.
The Company operates two systems of salary payment:-
(1) individual salary with a salary review each year,
(11) general clerical salary scales with an annual
increase, as negotiated between the Company and the
Union.
The employee is on the individual salary system with a regular
annual review based on performance. She was transferred to the
accounts section in December, 1984, and, according to the Company,
she resisted the transfer and adopted a negative attitude to her
job, and her rate of absenteeism increased. The employee did not
receive an increase following a review of her salary in 1986. She
was later transferred from the accounts section to another vacancy
at Head Office. The Company offered her a 5% increase in 1987,
and a further review in 1988; she refused both offers. The Union
is seeking to have the worker's salary increased in line with all
other clerical staff since January, 1986, and to have all such
increases automatically applied in the future. In addition the
Union is seeking to have the worker's service pay restored. The
Company has rejected the Union's claim and as no agreement was
reached in local discussions the dispute was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 10th December,
1987. A conciliation conference was held on the 26th July, 1988
(the earliest date suitable to both parties) but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 8th August, 1988. A
Labour Court hearing took place in Tralee on the 29th September,
1988. At the Court hearing the parties agreed to have further
discussions at local level. On 5th December, 1988, the parties
informed the Court that their discussions did not result in a
settlement of the dispute and requested a Court Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee was on the general clerical salary scale up
to 1977. On promotion, that year, she was placed on a salary
scale with an annual review. She has never been given details
of this scale. She has worked exceptionally well in all
departments until her transfer to the accounts section in
1984. As a result of serious personality differences she was
unhappy in that section. Despite over twenty years service
the employee was treated almost as a junior. Nevertheless she
has worked as best she could, but has not received any
increase in 1987 or 1988, and it is now almost four years
since she has had any salary increase. The employee wrote to
the personnel manager in October, 1986 and received only a
cover note in reply. Despite numerous letters sent to the
Company listing the employee's grievances and requesting the
appropriate salary increases, the Company's response has been
negative.
2. The Union's claim on behalf of the worker is simple and
straight forward. If she had been treated the same as all
other Union members since January, 1986, she would have
received a lump sum of £200 and a 9% increase as follows:-
3% on 1986 basic rates from 1/1/1987,
2½% on 1986 basic rates from 1/8/1987,
3½% on 1986 basic rate from 1/11/1987.
She would also be entitled to the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery from 1st January, 1988. If she had been
treated as other salary review staff she would have benefited
thus:-
1986 7% to 9%,
1987 5% to 7%,
1988 4% to 7%.
It is obvious that the employee has been badly treated by the
Company. The mental anguish and uncertainty which she has
suffered has had an adverse effect on her personality and she
genuinely feels that she can no longer accept the system of an
annual salary review.
3. 3. She has also suffered another major financial loss,
because of the uncertainty surrounding her future during this
period of time. When employees of the Group were offered
Company shares at 35 pence per share, the employee only
availed of the minimum 1,000 shares whereas if the situation
had been normal she would have purchased 10,000. As these
shares are now worth approximately £1.50 per share, her loss
has been substantial. Details of the current clerical scale
of Union members employed in the regions by the Group have
been supplied to the Court. There also exists within the
Group other agreed rates, and the Union contends that the
employee's salary of £8,800, at the end of 1985, should be
improved by the average of the salary reviews to the end of
1987, and that her salary at that date should attract the
future Union increases. The Union also claims that her
service pay should be restored.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the employee was transferred to the accounts section
her behaviour towards her superiors became disrespectful and
at times abusive. Her work performance was poor and her
absenteeism rate increased dramatically. Her behaviour seemed
to stem from the fact that she did not wish to work in this
section, and that if she was disruptive and uncooperative,
that she could achieve her preference to work elsewhere. In
view of her long service in the dairy sector prior to the
existence of the Group, and since its foundation in 1974, the
Company has tried in a sensitive and helpful manner to defuse
the situation through discussions and counselling, but all
such efforts were singularly unsuccessful.
2. The Company considered taking official disciplinary
action, as it was felt that the employee's ongoing behaviour
was such that dismissal might be appropriate. However as this
was a unique occurrence amongst the staff at Head Office and
because of the employee's previous record it was decided to
move the worker to another section within Head Office. In
August, 1986 she was moved to the agriculture section. During
the twenty one months (from November, 1984 to August, 1986)
which the employee worked in the accounts section her
performance was exceptionally poor. Consequently she did not
receive any salary review in January, 1986 (based on her
performance over the previous twelve months). The employee
was on an individual salary (as opposed to a salary scale),
and as such was in receipt of a higher rate than people on the
salary scale system. In October and November, 1986 the
employee requested that she be given a review for the full
year on the same basis as the review which had been applied to
people on the salary scale system for that year. As a
decision had already been made that she did not merit a review
on the basis of her previous performance, and as it was not
possible to apply general reviews from one system to people on
individual salaries operating on a different system, this was
refused.
4. 3. In January, 1987 the employee was offered a 5% review on
her salary of £8,800. She indicated that she did not wish to
have this review applied to her salary. In September, 1987
she again approached the personnel officer on the basis that
she wished to maintain her individual salary, which was higher
than the highest point on the alternative salary scale, but
she was looking for back pay based on the reviews which had
been given to people on the general salaries scale. The
personnel officer pointed out that this was not possible, and
advised her to accept her 5% review for 1987. He wrote a memo
to the employee on the following day clearly outlining the
reasons why it was not possible to agree to her request,
stating that the Company could not create a third system of
salary in order that she could have the best of both worlds.
He stated that she could change back to the salaries scale but
that this would be to her disadvantage. This was also
explained to the Union when it subsequently contacted the
Company on the worker's behalf.
4. In January, 1987 the employee was offered a further review
of 8%, and it was made clear to her that the 5% offered the
previous year would still be back dated as soon as she
accepted it. This meant that her review for 1987 and 1988
amounted to a total of 13% increasing her salary from £8,800
to £10,000 per annum. The top point of the salary scale at
that time was £8,923. The employee again refused to accept
this salary increase. For the information of the Court, the
average increase of Union members over the previous two years
amounted to 9%.
5. From December, 1984 to August, 1986 the employee's work
performance, attitude, absenteeism and general behaviour were
very poor by any standards. As a senior person the disruptive
effect which she had on her colleagues and supervisors might
have had very serious consequences, in an operation which is
central to the success of the overall Group operation. The
Company is of the opinion that in all the circumstances the
loss of salary review for one year was a very minor penalty.
The employee was subsequently offered two salary reviews both
of which she refused. These were in excess of either normal
Union increases for that period, or increases generally in
head office for that period. She has requested the Company to
effectively set up a third type of salary structure
specifically to suit her own particular circumstances and to
avoid any penalty for her past performance. The Company has
dealt very fairly with the employee during the long period of
her poor performance, and had they adopted a different
approach during this period (which they would have been
entitled to do under all the circumstances) the employee's
future with the Company would have been in serious question.