Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90105 Case Number: LCR12895 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KROMBERG AND SCHUBERT - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of twenty two workers in the utility section for pay parity with workers in the stores section.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties finds the claim if conceded would be contrary to
the terms of the Programme for National Recovery.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's
claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90105 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KROMBERG AND SCHUBERT
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of twenty two workers in the utility section
for pay parity with workers in the stores section.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Waterford Industrial Estate and
employs approximately 1,000 workers in the manufacture of cable
harness for cars. The workers concerned are employed in direct
production and services and are paid a basic wage plus bonus
payments. Both stores and utility workers operate as two sections
within the Company. The rates of pay of the two groups of workers
are as follows:
Basic Bonus Gross
Stores workers 182.20 22.00 204.20
Utility workers 147.92 48.96 196.88
The Union's claim, which was submitted to the Company in October,
1989, is for pay parity for utility workers with stores workers.
The Company has rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 8th January,
1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 1st February,
1990 but no agreement was reached. The issue was referred to the
Labour Court on the 12th February, 1990. A Court hearing was held
in Waterford on the 9th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Some years ago there were basic differences between the
jobs in utility and stores section; however changes in the
duties in recent years have made them similar. The job
specification for workers in the utility section now (details
supplied to the Court) when compared with that of stores shows
that 20 out of 27 points are the same as or similar to work
carried out by the stores section where workers enjoy a
differential of #7.32. As most of the work carried out by the
utility section is on a par with that of the stores section,
and all is equal in value, the Union is claiming that the
payments should be the same. As all twenty two of the workers
concerned are interchangeable the claim applies to all the
workers.
2. As the claim is for pay parity it is not precluded under
the terms of P.N.R. If the claim is conceded by the Company,
the bringing of the utility basic up to that of stores basic
would rule out any possibility of stores personnel seeking the
present higher utility bonus. The Union does not believe that
there would be repercussive claims from the other sections
within the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has been no significant change in the utility
workers' job which could justify a pay increase. There are
significant elements of the stores job which utility employees
do not carry out. Essentially the utility job involves the
movement of materials from place to place. The stores job
involves, inter alia, "booking in" material, "booking out"
material, material counting and stock checks.
2. The stores job (details supplied to the Court) is regarded
by the Company as the more responsible post overall and thus
is remunerated at a higher level. This is reflective of the
general practice with regard to utility and stores workers in
manufacturing industry.
3. The established pay structure within the Company
represents seven grades within the workforce, general
production, wire cutting, utility, stores, extrusion, quality
assurance and supervisors. The structure is such that any
movement which does not have a well substantiated and agreed
rationale will inevitably lead to repercussive claims. The
Company does not accept or believe that there is general
acceptance on the part of the workforce as a whole that the
utility section should have a "special" pay increase.
4. The Company cannot concede the claim as it is a cost
increasing claim and as such is excluded under the Programme
for National Recovery.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties finds the claim if conceded would be contrary to
the terms of the Programme for National Recovery.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
7th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.