Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90265 Case Number: LCR13019 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DOUWE EGBERTS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning rates of pay applicable to two workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions oral and
written of the parties. It is the view of the Court that
notwithstanding the duration over which the review system worked
it's acceptability had not been tested up to the present dispute
because the review system had yielded benefits acceptable to the
workers concerned.
With the absence of any benefit being yielded on this occasion to
the two individuals concerned in this claim while benefits either
through the review system or the analogues were being enjoyed by
other workers the review system came into question.
It appears to the Court that the system should be retained.
However if disputes are to be avoided the criteria on which the
assessment is based must be clearly understood and be capable of
being questioned by the workers concerned.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the review system be
retained and that the Company and the Union define the criteria to
be used and the basis on which the review will be carried out,
together with a procedure to deal with any issue on which the
parties may disagree. The Court does not find grounds for
concession of the Union's claim for the establishment of a
differential over the crafts people and accordingly rejects it.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90265 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13019
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DOUWE EGBERTS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning rates of pay applicable to two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the processing of tobacco and
employs approximately 130 workers. The workers concerned are
employed as technical chargehands. Wages and conditions of
employment are determined in the Company by a relativity
arrangement with three outside companies in the tobacco industry.
The wages and conditions of employment are averaged between the
three external companies and the average is applied to workers in
Douwe Egberts Limited. In relation to supervisory staff including
technical chargehands there are no criteria established within the
tobacco industry for this group and the Company therefore operates
a biennial merit review whereby an individual or category can
receive an adjustment in pay based on performance, merit, general
movements, responsibility, scope of job. These two methods of
determining pay and conditions have been in operation for twenty
three years. In April, 1989 all chargehands and assistant
chargehands with the exception of the two workers concerned
received increases over the terms provided for in the Programme
for National Recovery. The increase arose as the result of an
internal review of the pay of the various grades above craftsman.
Subsequently the Union submitted a claim on behalf of the two
workers for similar increases. Management rejected the claim.
Local discussions failed to resolve the issue which was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 1st
December, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 23rd
January, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd May, 1990. A Court
hearing was held in Longford on the 28th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the Company's method of pay review has worked well
over the years nevertheless the criteria employed and the
method of assessment are unknown to the staff. There is
inadequate provision for appeal and objective review is
precluded. Accordingly it can continue to serve the
requirements of industrial harmony only as long as it is
perceived as producing benefits all round. In this instance
its limitations stand exposed.
2. Management stated that the Company's method of pay review
was carried out on the basis of "team evaluation" taking into
account such factors as scope, method, performance etc. in
assessing each job. However, the Union has not been able to
secure any tangible specific information which would enable it
to reach a conclusion as to reliability in the case of
technical chargehands.
3. It is noteworthy that the system has proved successful
over the years but as long as it produced benefits all round
its reliability could hardly have been tested. The very
existence of this dispute exposes some weaknesses which
restrict its usefulness as a means of solving the problem.
4. The Union feels that the obvious solution is the
establishment of an internal relativity with crafts people.
This concept is widely applied in industry generally. However
this suggestion is dismissed by Management without any valid
reason.
5. If the decision of the Company's "evaluation team" cannot
be exposed to objective review, resolution of the dispute
cannot be achieved through that course. Similarly the
external comparisons route is not viable given the absence of
"like for like comparisons."
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has offered two options to the Union in
relation to determining pay and conditions of the workers
concerned.
1. External relativity based on agreed criteria for
comparison with the other three tobacco companies as
an alternative method of reviewing salaries and if
agreed between the parties, the existing review for
chargehands would be abandoned.
2. Maintain the existing system of review i.e. the
biennial merit review.
The first option was untenable as the Union was not able to
put forward realistic criteria based on external comparisons
with the other tobacco companies. The Company pointed out
that based on its research of external comparisons, rates of
pay for chargehands in Douwe Egberts were in excess of
comparable categories in the industry.
2. The basis of determining pay and conditions in the Company
is unique and has operated without problems for twenty three
years. There were absolutely no valid grounds to change it.
The Company will only recognise one system or the other for
chargehands but not both. Any undermining of the system would
have serious and damaging consequences for the entire Company
and such a situation could not be tolerated.
3. Any claims therefore based on internal relativities with
craftsmen, i.e. electricians etc. must immediately be rejected
based on the established system that has been in operation for
many years.
4. The craft chargehands enjoy a favourable rate over and
above their comparators in the three tobacco companies and
their rate also compares very favourably with other craftsmen
in the Company when compared to external companies. This
clearly demonstrates that the current and established system
of pay review for the chargehand category has been
advantageous to them.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions oral and
written of the parties. It is the view of the Court that
notwithstanding the duration over which the review system worked
it's acceptability had not been tested up to the present dispute
because the review system had yielded benefits acceptable to the
workers concerned.
With the absence of any benefit being yielded on this occasion to
the two individuals concerned in this claim while benefits either
through the review system or the analogues were being enjoyed by
other workers the review system came into question.
It appears to the Court that the system should be retained.
However if disputes are to be avoided the criteria on which the
assessment is based must be clearly understood and be capable of
being questioned by the workers concerned.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the review system be
retained and that the Company and the Union define the criteria to
be used and the basis on which the review will be carried out,
together with a procedure to deal with any issue on which the
parties may disagree. The Court does not find grounds for
concession of the Union's claim for the establishment of a
differential over the crafts people and accordingly rejects it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
14th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.