Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89334 Case Number: LCR12453 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BETACO LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning a review of clerical salary scales.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from both parties
and in particular the letter from the Company dated 12th April,
1988. The Court accepts there is a difference of interpretation
between the parties and recommends that the parties agree to
negotiate a review of salary scales to be implemented with effect
from the date the Programme for National Recovery expires.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89334 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12453
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BETACO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a review of clerical salary scales.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1988 following local level discussions and
conciliation the parties agreed the introduction of a salary scale
for clerical workers ranging from #70 a week at year 1 to #150 a
week at year 9 (see Appendix A for details). From 1st January,
1989 the salary scales were adjusted in line with the Programme
for National Recovery. The Union claims that the salary scales
were agreed on the basis that a review of the scales would be
carried out in December, 1988 and that this review was not as the
Company contends purely the implementation of the second phase of
the PNR. No agreement could be reached at local level and on 4th
April, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 28th
April, 1989 at which no agreement was reached and on 9th May, 1989
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 22nd June,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers accepted the contents of the Company's letter
of 12th April, 1988 unenthusiastically following a long period
of negotiations and the deciding factor was the commitment to
review the scales on 31st December, 1988. This review was
perceived as particularly important given the emergence of the
PNR after the onset of negotiations. The commitment to review
placed the Company's offer in the "interim settlement"
category and merely meant that negotiations would continue in
December, 1988 (in a pre PNR context) to reach a final
settlement.
2. The Company's argument that the review intended in
December, 1988 was in fact the next phase of the PNR is
totally illogical. That adjustment had already been provided
for in the negotiations in April, 1988 and therefore it was a
commitment already secured and not subject to any review.
Without the commitment to review the offer would not have been
accepted. The scales sought are in line with those applying
in the industry and as used in the original claim (details
supplied to the Court). The Union and the workers have the
right to a review of the scales with effect from 1st January,
1989 and the scales sought should be conceded as they are very
much in line with the lower levels in the industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The salary scales were reviewed and adjusted as agreed in
the Company's letter of 12th April, 1988 (details supplied to
the Court). The adjustment was in accordance with the PNR and
in particular Clause 5. The proposed review of the salary
scales was to be in line with the PNR and no commitment was
given to the Union that the Company would waive its right to
implement the PNR from 1st January, 1989. It was agreed that
the salary increases from 1st April, 1988 would be inclusive
of Phase 1 of the PNR and Phase 2 would commence on 1st
January, 1989 and Phase 3 on 1st January, 1990. The present
claim is therefore debarred as a cost increasing claim under
clause 4 of the PNR.
2. The substantial increases in pay conceded to the workers
in 1988 which ranged from 20% - 33% were a once off gesture to
establish good industrial relations within the Company. It
was felt that such increases could be traded off against the
increases under the PNR of 2.50% for the following years. The
1988 increases would not have been conceded if the Company was
expecting to face further substantial pay claims in 1989. The
Company has honoured the agreement with the Union and its
obligation to the workers.