Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8951 Case Number: LCR12327 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TELEMECANIQUE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 clerical and technical staff concerning the introduction of a salary scale structure.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the existing methods of pay should be
retained subject to an annual review and the right of the Union to
make representations in any particular case.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8951 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12327
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TELEMECANIQUE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 clerical and technical
staff concerning the introduction of a salary scale structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is French owned, is involved in the
electronics area. The clerical and technical staff are paid fixed
point salaries, which are reviewed by the Company from time to
time. At the beginning of 1988, these workers joined the Union,
who lodged a claim on their behalf for the introduction of a
salary scale structure. On 23rd September, 1988, the Union
proposed the following 2 scales for the grades concerned:
SALARY
______
A. Clerical including A/CS Stock
Control SNR Clerical, Payroll
Officers, Storemen, Clerk #7732 to #15060
Typists, Telephonist/Receptionist
Computer Programmer.
B. Purchasing Officers.
Supervisory.
Analyst Programmer, Technicians/ #11032 to #17920
Quality Control/Methods Engineer
(SNR Tech).
The Company responded by rejecting the Union's suggestion that the
pay and conditions policy adopted in the Company from its
inception should be set aside. As agreement could not be reached
at local level, the matter was referred on 15th November, 1988, to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 14th December, 1988,
and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 25th January,
1989, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 23rd February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current salary structure is not adequate. A number of
the workers are low paid for their job content. If an
incremental system, embracing assimilation, were agreed and
providing workers were properly placed at the beginning, then
this mechanism would be fair and just and would ensure that
nobody fell behind.
2. Most companies in the electronics industry operate a
salary scale structure (details provided to the Court). The
structure proposed by the Union was based on a Union survey of
the industry. Negotiations between the Union and Company will
have to mutually agree the job titles included in the proposed
scales, the minimum and maximum points on the scales and the
amount of annual increment.
3. Most clerical and administrative workers enjoy a salary
scale structure. The Labour Court has in the past recommended
that these structures be implemented for this grade of worker.
The Company should negotiate an appropriate structure along
the lines proposed by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company contends that its pay policy compares
favourably with pay in the electronics industry. Merit
increases, whilst not applicable to everybody do add to the
pay of the workers.
2. Pay scales would unbalance the pay structure in the
Company, where manual workers, craft workers and supervisors
all accept the concept of pay rates. The introduction of a
salary scale would not fit into the pay policy of the parent
Company in France and would require a multitude of scales to
cover the range of occupations. A scale could relate to only
one person.
3. The Company will examine any individual rate of pay if it
is argued that it requires adjustment to bring it into line
with rates in the electronics industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the existing methods of pay should be
retained subject to an annual review and the right of the Union to
make representations in any particular case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_____________________
21st March, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.