Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90110 Case Number: LCR12907 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MULTY PRODUCTS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rate of pay of two workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
takes the view that notwithstanding the lack of reply from the
Union the Company should not have unilaterally changed the
agreement.
The Court also finds that the Union, given the letter containing
proposals, should have ensured a response was made to the Company
proposals.
In the light of the above the Court recommends the parties discuss
the Company proposals with a view to agreeing a basis for
introducing a new structure within a period of two weeks.
In the event the parties do not reach agreement the Court will be
prepared to make a recommendation.
In the disputed cases before the Court it is recommended that the
workers concerned be placed on the point of the scale they would
have been on had the scales not been altered.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90110 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12907
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MULTY PRODUCTS (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay of two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In January, 1989 the Company formulated proposals to change
the pay structure for junior category staff. Up to that time the
Company operated an age-related pay scale for new employees
commencing at 16 years of age. As the Company required to recruit
new junior employees at an older age level it felt that salary
scales should be revised to a service-related scale. The Company
wrote to the Union on 31st January, 1989 outlining its proposals
for a new service-related scale and also proposed to establish a
new position as "lead hand." The proposed pay structure changes
were:-
"Old scale" "new scale"
16 years old - 50% of basic rate. First six months - 55% of basic
rate.
Second six months - 60% basic
rate.
17 years old - 56% of basic rate. Second year - 70% of basic rate.
18 years old - 67% of basic rate. Third year - 80% of basic rate.
19 years old - 77% of basic rate. Fourth year - 90% of basic rate.
The Company claims that as no objections were raised by the Union
or the staff it reasonably assumed that the new pay structure was
acceptable and implemented the scales from January, 1989. The
Union claims that no formal agreement was reached between the
staff or the Union regarding the proposed new pay structure.
Subsequent to the introduction by the Company of the new pay
structure it appointed two temporary workers to permanent
positions. Worker A was appointed to the permanent staff on 25th
April, 1989 and placed on point four of the new scale. Worker B
was appointed to the permanent staff on 19th September, 1989 and
placed on the appropriate point on the new scale. The Union
claims that the two workers concerned should be paid on the
age-related pay structure as no formal agreement had been reached
to introduce a new service-related pay structure. The Company
rejects this claim. No agreement was reached at local level and
the matter was referred on 12th January, 1990 to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 26th January, 1990 at which the parties agreed to hold a
meeting at local level to discuss the matter. No agreement was
reached at local level and the matter was referred on 20th March,
1990 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which took place on 4th
May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In January, 1989 the Company contacted the Union with a
proposal to amend the pay structure of staff. No agreement
was forthcoming from the staff on this matter and therefore no
agreement was reached between the Company and the Union.
2. The Union has a current agreement with the Company in
relation to an age-related pay structure. The Company is
breaching this agreement which was freely entered into between
the Union and the Company. If the Company wish to change this
agreement it can only be done through consultation,
negotiation and agreement.
3. Despite lack of agreement the Company introduced a new pay
structure with the result that two workers suffered a
considerable loss in earnings. The two workers concerned
should be fully compensated for their loss.
4. The Company claims that both workers concerned accepted
the wage rates which they were offered. The Union rejects
this claim as the two workers were not aware of the current
agreement between the Union and the Company at that time.
Also, the Union was not aware of the implementation of a new
"lead hand" rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company wrote to the Union on the 31st January, 1989
outlining its proposals on the revised rates. When no
objections were made to the Company by the Union or the staff
the Company reasonably assumed that they were acceptable to
the Union and implemented the new scales.
2. The proposals contained in the letter of the 31st January,
1989 about the "lead hand's" new rate of pay was accepted by
the Union and the employees and was implemented by the
Company. This acceptance of the "lead hand's" rate of pay
reinforced the Company's belief that its proposals had been
acceptable to the Union.
3. The two new workers placed by the Company on the new
revised rates of pay clearly knew, understood, and accepted
these rates of pay. Both workers were consulted about the
appropriate points at which they would enter the salary scale
and both agreed, accepted, and signed their present terms and
conditions of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
takes the view that notwithstanding the lack of reply from the
Union the Company should not have unilaterally changed the
agreement.
The Court also finds that the Union, given the letter containing
proposals, should have ensured a response was made to the Company
proposals.
In the light of the above the Court recommends the parties discuss
the Company proposals with a view to agreeing a basis for
introducing a new structure within a period of two weeks.
In the event the parties do not reach agreement the Court will be
prepared to make a recommendation.
In the disputed cases before the Court it is recommended that the
workers concerned be placed on the point of the scale they would
have been on had the scales not been altered.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
11th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.