Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89281 Case Number: LCR12396 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ADTEC TEORANTA/ADTEC AER AUTO - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Pay claim on behalf of approximately 30 craftworkers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the Union is correct in its
contention that the Company was in breach of the Company/Union
Agreement and the Court strongly recommends that the Company in
future adhere strictly to the terms of that Agreement.
However, having considered the submissions, the Court is satisfied
that the claim is excluded by the terms of the PNR. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim and
considers that in all the circumstances of the case, the Company's
proposals should be accepted.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89281 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12396
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ADTEC TEORANTA/ADTEC AER AUTO
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Pay claim on behalf of approximately 30 craftworkers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1977 and the claimants became
members of the Union in 1984. At that time a number of different
rates of pay applied to craftspersons and it was agreed during
discussions on the 26th wage round claim that the Company would
eliminate the differential in craft workers' rates of pay (#172.23
and #178.07 - 26th wage round rates) over the period of the 27th
and 28th wage rounds. The elimination of this differential was to
be achieved by the payment of #3 to craftspersons on #172.23 on
top of the terms from the PNR. The balance plus the next phase of
the PNR would be paid for the 28th wage round. It was also agreed
that four craftworkers on a higher rate would be red-circled and
that this rate would "not be used for future claims against the
Company now, or in the future to further eliminate these higher
differentials".
Following the expiry of the 27th wage round on the 31st December,
1988, the Company proposed to apply the terms of the PNR from the
1st January, 1989 and to eliminate the balance of the differential
between #179.87 and #182.83 (27th round rates). This was however
rejected by the Union on the grounds that the Company had breached
the agreement by unilaterally raising the pay of one worker to
that of the red-circled rate. The Union is now seeking the higher
rate for all the craftspersons. This has been rejected by the
Company which argues that the worker in question was put on the
higher rate because of the skills he holds and the work he does.
As no local level agreement could be reached the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
25th January, 1989. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference on the 17th April (earliest suitable date)
and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 8th May,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. By unilaterally increasing the pay of the worker in
question, the Company is in breach of clause 1.2 of the
Company/Union Agreement which states that "all persons covered
by this Agreement will have their terms and conditions of
employment negotiated by the Shop Committee". No such
negotiations took place in this instance.
2. The Company's only defence for its action is that the
worker concerned has additional skills. The Union refutes
this. He may be more proficient than others on a specific
machine but similarly other craftsmen are proficient in their
specific trade.
3. A number of the craftsmen on the base rate have served
their apprenticeship in the Company. Considering they have
been trained by the Company from the time they left school,
no-body could be more proficient in the Company's operation.
4. Both the base rate and the higher rate are relatively
low when compared with rates elsewhere (details supplied to
the Court).
5. The concept of a common craft rate for craftspersons
working for the same employer under the same conditions has
served industry well over many years and is a policy that has
been subscribed to by employers and craft unions alike. There
is no justification for the Company now departing from this
policy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In early 1988 the Company employed a craft worker at the
basic craft rate. Because he could programme and operate the
computer controlled lathe (CNC) his rate was increased to the
higher rate held by two craftworkers who are employed in the
machine shop. This rate, inclusive of the second phase of the
PNR would now stand at #200.21. He was given this higher rate
to reflect his additional responsibility in programming the
CNC lathe and he is the only craft worker in the Company with
the skills to do this work.
2. The agreement signed by the factory manager and the shop
stewards in March, 1988, specifically states that the higher
rate "should not be used for further claims against the
Company now or in the future to further eliminate these higher
differentials". The present claim is clearly in breach of
this agreement.
3. The terms of the National Agreement on Pay contained in
the PNR specifically precludes any claims of a cost increasing
nature in excess of the pay terms provided for. The present
claim is therefore in breach of the PNR.
4. 4. There is no basis for the current claim. Those seeking
the higher rate are not responsible for programming and are
not capable of programming the CNC lathe.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the Union is correct in its
contention that the Company was in breach of the Company/Union
Agreement and the Court strongly recommends that the Company in
future adhere strictly to the terms of that Agreement.
However, having considered the submissions, the Court is satisfied
that the claim is excluded by the terms of the PNR. The Court
accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim and
considers that in all the circumstances of the case, the Company's
proposals should be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
15th May, 1989 ------------
D.H./U.S. Deputy Chairman