Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91451 Case Number: LCR13486 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BECKMAN INSTRUMENTS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the calculation of salary and compensation for workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions in this case has
noted that the "package" which was introduced in 1985 including
salary rates was by agreement between management and the Union.
The Union is now seeking a review of the salary calculation
retrospective to the start of the Agreement.
Having regard to the beneficial nature of the original package for
the staff involved, the agreement at that time of the salary
figures, the Company approach to rounding-up pay amounts, the
rates which actually apply to overtime and the length of time that
the arrangements have been in force, the Court is of the opinion
that, a review or adjustment of the calculations used is not now
justified.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91451 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR13486
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: BECKMAN INSTRUMENTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the calculation of salary and compensation
for workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is based in Galway and employs approximately
80 workers, making products for the Healthcare Industry. In
1985 hourly paid workers were changed to monthly paid status.
The method of calculating the monthly salary was as follows:-
40 hours X 52 weeks / 12 months = Monthly Salary.
2. In 1990 the Union made a claim on behalf of the workers
concerned that the 'weeks' multiplier should have been 52.18.
The claim is that 5½ days salary has been lost to the workers
since 1985 as a result. The Union are seeking to be
compensated for the loss and the correction of the salary
scales by the use of a 'weeks' multiplier of 52.18. The
Company have rejected the claim on the basis that an agreement
was reached in 1985 when salary and other benefits were agreed
(details supplied).
3. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service on
27th August 1990 and a conciliation conference was held on
17th October 1990. A resolution of the dispute was not
possible and it was referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on 22nd August 1991. A Labour
Court investigation took place in Galway on 16th October 1991.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1985 the Union came to an agreement with the Company
to change the hourly paid workers to a monthly salaried basis.
In 1990 it was discovered by the workers that the method of
calculation used in the changeover was incorrect. This has
resulted in of a loss of 5½ days pay to the workers. The
workers are seeking compensation for the loss suffered since
1985 and that the Company should change the method of
annualising salary by multiplying the weekly pay by 52.18.
3. The agreement reached with the Company in 1985 was wide
ranging and by changing hourly paid staff to a monthly
salaried structure, other benefits accrued (details supplied).
The Company, during negotiations, continually stated that
there would be no loss to the workers as a result of the
changeover. It is clear that the workers have lost out as a
result of the changeover and this situation should be
rectified.
COMPANY AGREEMENTS:
4. 1. In 1985 the Company came to a negotiated agreement with
the workers. The Company's philosophy was to improve the
workers' position by making the terms and conditions of
employment single status within the Company. As part of the
agreement the annual salary was calculated by multiplying the
weekly salary by 52. At that time and yearly thereafter on
1st December, rates of pay were negotiated, calculated and
given to the Union.
2. The 1985 agreement was very costly to the Company (details
supplied). In the light of the increased benefit, the Union
claim is both unreasonable and not justified. If the claim
was conceded it would cause financial and administrative
difficulties in terms of rectifying the situation. The 1985
agreement was accepted as a package by the workers and it is
wrong to claim that the Company cheated the workers of 5½ days
pay since 1985 while ignoring the massive benefits which were
achieved by the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions in this case has
noted that the "package" which was introduced in 1985 including
salary rates was by agreement between management and the Union.
The Union is now seeking a review of the salary calculation
retrospective to the start of the Agreement.
Having regard to the beneficial nature of the original package for
the staff involved, the agreement at that time of the salary
figures, the Company approach to rounding-up pay amounts, the
rates which actually apply to overtime and the length of time that
the arrangements have been in force, the Court is of the opinion
that, a review or adjustment of the calculations used is not now
justified.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
25th November, 1991 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman