Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89333 Case Number: LCR12581 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claims for (a) salary re-alignment for instrument technicians and (b) pay parity for two junior instrument technicians.
Recommendation:
13. The Court considered the submissions made by the parties and
subsequent correspondence on the issues in question and recommends
as follows:-
(a) The Introduction of Analogues
Having regard to the existing internal relativities within the
plant the introduction of analogues such as proposed by the
Union would not be appropriate and the Court therefore does
not recommend concession of the claim.
(b) Upgrading of two technicians
The Court takes the view that, in the particular circumstances
in which the grade of senior technician evolved, and which now
no longer apply, and having regard to the rates and conditions
of comparable workers in the Cork plant, that the case for
upgrading of the two technicians concerned is not sustainable.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of this
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89333 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12581
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for (a) salary re-alignment for instrument technicians
and (b) pay parity for two junior instrument technicians.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Arklow factory was built in the early 1960s and the first
units commenced production in 1964. Because the majority of plant
units were the most technically advanced in the country at that
time the Company experienced difficulty in recruiting suitably
qualified staff locally or nationally. To address this problem
the Company employed some of the contractor staff for a short
while and launched a recruitment campaign in England.
Instrumentation was the main area where difficulty was experienced
by the Company in recruiting staff. In order to attract the right
calibre of people the Company introduced the grade of senior
instrument technician.
3. The package for technicians consisted of (a) salary scale, (b)
sickness pay scheme, (c) pension scheme, (d) 37.50 hour working week
and (e) additional holidays. These conditions with the exception
of the 37.50 hour week were extended to all the Company's employees
in 1977.
4. These claims were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 14th March, 1989. A conciliation conference was
held on 3rd May, 1989. As no agreement was reached the matter
were referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Arklow on 18th July,
1989. Both parties subsequently submitted additional
correspondence to the Court.
5. Claim (a) Salary re-alignment for instrument technicians.
Background:
In 1976 the Union on behalf of instrument technicians sought the
introduction of analogues. The Company claimed inability to pay
under the 21st, 22nd and 23rd pay rounds. The matter was again
raised under the 24th wage round. The Company responded that its
financial position was still grave but that it would make an offer
in return for the Union's acceptance of its Programme for
Competitiveness.
6. No agreement could be reached and the issue was the subject of
a Labour Court investigation and recommendation. The Court in
L.C.R. No. 10041 made the following recommendations:-
"The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted:-
(i) the trading position of the Company, (ii) the Programme
for Competitiveness of which a comprehensive agreement will
form part and (iii) that negotiations will also take place
for a separate pay increase under the 25th Wage Round.
In the light of the foregoing and in the interests of an
ordered approach to pay negotiations in the Company, the
Court does not recommend that the Union should pursue a
separate wage claim based on analogues."
7. The Union is now basing its claim on the Company's improved
trading position and the fact that the instrument technician
scales had not been re-aligned despite Company assurances. In
response the Company argue that, as a common scale for
electricians and instrument technicians has existed at the Arklow
factory since 1976 and because of its Cork factory arrangements,
(details supplied to the Court), if analogues should be adopted
then the appropriate comparators would be craftsmens in comparable
companies.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Court in making its recommendation in 1985 took the
following factors into account (i) the Company's trading
position, (ii) the Programme for Competitiveness and (iii) pay
increases under future wage rounds. The Company argued that
(ii) and (iii) would bring instrument technician scales into
line with comparable companies. This has not happened.
2. The Company's trading position has improved substantially
while the instrument technician scales have not been
re-aligned despite Company assurances. The pay scales of the
technicians concerned are much lower than those of technicians
employed by Aer Lingus, C.S.E.T., Bord Na Mona and Irish Steel
(details supplied to the Court). The Company should re-align
the I.F.I. technicians pay scales with these companies, on a
phased basis if necessary.
3. The Company has also stated in the past vis a vis similar
scales in comparable companies "that to be in the top quartile
is desireable."
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The work at the Cork factory on instrumentation equipment
of modern design which is much more advanced than that at
Arklow is done by modern day craftsmen. The Instrumentation
Section there is comprised of mechanical craftsmen and
electricians who are paid the craft rate. Therefore if
analogues were to be adopted the appropriate comparators
should be craftsmen in comparable employments.
2. The Company is opposed to the use of analogues based on
technicians rates as it is the only manufacturer of fertiliser
in this country and its real competitors are operating in the
U.K. and on the continent. The participation in analogues
would oblige the Company to respond to salary adjustments in
other companies for reasons that would have no bearing on this
company's activities.
3. The technicians concerned enjoy excellent salary and
conditions of employment (details supplied to the Court).
4. As this involves an increase in remuneration it is
contrary to the provisoins of the Programme for National
Recovery.
10. Claim (b) Pay parity for two junior instrument technicians.
Background:
In April, 1988 the Union sought the regrading of two junior
technicians to give them pay parity with their fellow technicians.
The Union lodged the claim as a result of a major rationalisation
in the instrument workshop area. The number of technicians was
reduced from eight to six,; four senior and two junior and the
foreman and supervisory layers were removed from the instrument
department.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The reduction in the workforce numbers and the removal of
the supervisory layers now calls for a more mobile technical
workforce, all doing similar work without supervision, moving
freely from plant to plant for maintenance. All six also do
"on-call" duties and any projects as required.
2. The two technicians concerned do exactly the same duties
as the other four. All have taken on extra duties (details
supplied to the Court).
3. There is no difference between the duties and
responsibilities of the two technicians concerned and no
reason for there being separate grades.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. The Company introduced a grade of senior technician to
meet the staffing requirement of the day. The situation has
now changed to the extent that the staffing can be provided by
modern day trained craftsmen.
2. The Company recognised the change in the competence of
craftsmen as far back as 1977 when it decided that it would
not maintain the previous ratio of senior to junior
technicians. The Union then contested that decision and
referred the claim for the appointment of senior technicians
to the Court. The Court upheld the Company's position,
(Recommendation No. 4266 refers).
3. To now promote the two juniors at Arklow would have
serious consequences for the Company as it would result in a
parity claim for all other craftsmen in the Company.
4. This claim is also contrary to the provision of the
Programme for National Recovery.
RECOMMENDATION:
13. The Court considered the submissions made by the parties and
subsequent correspondence on the issues in question and recommends
as follows:-
(a) The Introduction of Analogues
Having regard to the existing internal relativities within the
plant the introduction of analogues such as proposed by the
Union would not be appropriate and the Court therefore does
not recommend concession of the claim.
(b) Upgrading of two technicians
The Court takes the view that, in the particular circumstances
in which the grade of senior technician evolved, and which now
no longer apply, and having regard to the rates and conditions
of comparable workers in the Cork plant, that the case for
upgrading of the two technicians concerned is not sustainable.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of this
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
29th September, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.