Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90595 Case Number: AD9049 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 183/90 and C.W. 184/90 concerning the remuneration of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court is not
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner had sufficient grounds for
recommending the specific salary level proposed for the worker
concerned. It is of the opinion that in the circumstances the
recommendation should not stand. The Court so decides.
The Court further recommends that the Company should reactivate
its proposal to establish a post of Junior Buyer and that the
salary for that post be negotiated having regard to the job
specification of the new position.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90595 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. C.W. 183/90 and C.W. 184/90 concerning the
remuneration of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures shower enclosures and shower
cubicles. The worker concerned has 8 years experience as a
purchasing assistant with the Company. For fours years up to 15
June, 1990 the worker had been working an agreed 3 day week. From
the week beginning 18th June, 1990 she was required by the Company
to work a five day week and the terms and conditions of the 5 day
position were conveyed by letter to the worker on that date. The
worker commenced 5 day working on 18th June, 1990 although she had
previously indicated to the Company her reluctance to do so for
domestic and financial reasons. Her starting salary was #172.73
per week. About this time a vacancy arose for the post of
purchasing manager in the Company. The worker applied for the
position but was unsuccessful. The position was filled but later
became vacant again. The worker again unsuccessfully applied for
the position. In July, 1990 the worker made a claim for a 50%
increase in her weekly pay on the basis of the increased workload
and costs incurred in resuming 5 day working. The Company
rejected the claim by letter dated 25th July, 1990. The Company
then considered proposals for the creation of a new position of
junior buyer which the worker would be eligible to apply for. The
holder of the junior buyer position would carry out duties which
would assist towards gaining qualifications for the more senior
job of purchasing manager. Nothing concrete emerged from the
Company's consideration of these proposals. As no agreement was
reached on the worker's salary increase claim the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated the dispute on
10th September, 1990 and issued the following on 2nd October,
1990.
"Recommendation:
I recommend that the worker accepts her new job specification
and that the Company offers and she accepts an amended
"personal ex-scale" wage of #210 per week effective from mid
June, 1990."
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Company on 10th October, 1990 appealed this recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 19th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker changed from the 3 day to the 5 day week
position she was given a revised job specification which gave
her extra duties and responsibilities. The worker has taken
her new responsibilities in her stride and has effectively
trained in the new purchasing manager. The worker holds a key
position in the Company and she should be rewarded in a fair
and reasonable way for the responsibility of her revised
position.
2. The first time the Company came close to identifying the
workers true worth was when it proposed that a new position of
junior buyer would be offered to her which would be non-Union.
The worker refused to consider the proposal because of this
condition.
3. The worker is carrying out most of the duties which it is
envisaged would be allocated to the junior buyer position.
The worker is now doing extra work and carrying extra
responsibilities and the Company should recognise her
abilities and remunerate her accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The award by the Rights Commissioner of a personal
ex-scale wage to the worker is not justified in terms of
either the work which she is engaged in or the relativities
with other clerical workers in the Company. To grant the
worker such an increase would cause discontent amongst other
workers and lead to repercussive claims.
2. The Company agrees that the workload of the worker has
increased. By this, the Company means that she is now doing
the amount of work appropriate for a five day week as opposed
to previously performing the amount of work appropriate to a
three day week. For this, the worker has been compensated in
that now she received 5 days' pay per week as opposed to three
days' pay per week which she received previously.
3. With regard to changes in the nature of the work performed
by the worker the Company feels that such changes as have
occurred are changes which would routinely occur in the nature
of both her employment and the employment of all other
weekly-paid clerical employees. Other employees are
performing work of a similar nature to the worker and
functioning at a similar level. The worker is in receipt of
the pay and conditions appropriate to her grade and service.
4. Following the filling of the purchasing manager's position
the Company considered proposals to create the new position of
junior buyer. It was envisaged that experience and training
gained in this new position would assist the holder to qualify
for future competitions for the purchasing manager position.
These proposals were mentioned to the worker but she was not
offered the position. It was envisaged that the post would be
a staff position which is not normally unionised. Non-union
membership was not a condition of the proposed post.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court is not
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner had sufficient grounds for
recommending the specific salary level proposed for the worker
concerned. It is of the opinion that in the circumstances the
recommendation should not stand. The Court so decides.
The Court further recommends that the Company should reactivate
its proposal to establish a post of Junior Buyer and that the
salary for that post be negotiated having regard to the job
specification of the new position.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
13th November, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.