Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89830 Case Number: LCR12690 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURY (IRELAND) PLC - and - M.S.F. |
Claim on behalf of approximately 85 clerical workers for a 2.5% increase in pay following an improvement in the hourly rate for part-time workers and a reduction in hours for full-time workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court takes the view that the relationship between the salaries of
the workers concerned and the hourly rates of either full-time or
part-time production workers is not such as to sustain a claim for
an adjustment under the terms of the P.N.R., which provides for a
reduction in working hours.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89830 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12690
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CADBURY (IRELAND) PLC
and
M.S.F.
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 85 clerical workers for a
2.5% increase in pay following an improvement in the hourly rate
for part-time workers and a reduction in hours for full-time
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has a history of applying the same wage increase
to all groups of workers. This year, under the terms of clause
2(1) of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.), the Company
negotiated the introduction of a 39 hour week for full-time
production workers. On foot of this, the part-time production
workers submitted a claim for the restoration of their pay
relationship with the full-time production workers. The issue was
the subject of a Labour Court investigation, and the Court in
L.C.R. 12488, recommended in favour of the part-time workers and
awarded them an increase of 2.5% on their hourly rate. The Union
argued that this is effectively a 2.5% increase over and above the
agreed increase on basic pay. The Union claimed that because of
the agreed relativity in pay movements between all groups the 2.5%
increase should also apply to the clerical group. The Company
rejected the claim and on 13th September, 1989, the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
20th October, 1989, and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 9th November, 1989, for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 8th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The reduction in the working hours of the full-time
production workers, whilst having no effect on gross weekly
pay, had the effect of increasing the net hourly rate by 2.5%.
This impacts unfairly on the clerical workers, who work 36.25
hours per week, and have a well-established differential link
with the 40 hour full-time production workers.
2. The Court in L.C.R. 12488 accepted that the part-time
workers, who work a 29 hour week, were entitled to the 2.5%
increase because of their established pay relationship with
the full-time workers had been broken. It is a matter of
record that the clerical workers also have a formal pay
relationship with all other groups.
3. In 1985, an "In House" Agreement resulted in the
distortion of the differential between the clerical and
full-time production workers. The Company immediately gave
the clerical workers the necessary increase to rectify the
imbalance. The Company claims it cannot take similar action
to deal with this new distortion because the distortion was
influenced by an outside force, namely L.C.R. 12488.
4. It is stated Company policy to pay a fixed annual
percentage increase across the board. The Company has pursued
this policy since 1977. The Company now appears to want to
renege on this policy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 2(i) of the P.N.R. relates only to a reduction in
the length of the working week for employees whose normal
working week is at or above 40 hours. The clerical workers
have a 36.25 hour week.
2. The clerical workers are not part-time employees and are
therefore not covered by the minute to Clause 2(i) of the
P.N.R. This is borne out by the fact that clerical workers
receive overtime payment for hours worked beyond 36.25 hours
per week whereas the part-time workers receive overtime
payment only for hours worked beyond 39 hours per week.
3. Though it might be argued that in the past increases given
to production employees were applied to clerical rates, these
increases were negotiated entirely in-house and were not
brought about by factors outside of the Company's control such
as in this case where the P.N.R. gave employees who work 40
hours or more per week an entitlement to a reduction in the
length of the working week on the one hand and a facility for
part-time employees with formal pay relationships with
full-time 40 hour workers to make claims for equivalent
increases on the other hand. The clerical workers are not
covered by Clause 2(i) of the P.N.R. and are therefore not
entitled to the increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court takes the view that the relationship between the salaries of
the workers concerned and the hourly rates of either full-time or
part-time production workers is not such as to sustain a claim for
an adjustment under the terms of the P.N.R., which provides for a
reduction in working hours.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
8th January, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N/J.C.