Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91640 Case Number: LCR13554 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: STEEL COMPANY OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of clerical/administration staff for a new salary structure and two extra days annual leave.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It takes the view that the Company's proposals do not accord
sufficiently with general practice as to clerical and
administrative salary arrangements. It therefore recommends that
the Company proceed to negotiate with the Union on the basis of
the proposals made by the Union which appear to contain elements
which meet the Company's requirements.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91640 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13554
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: STEEL COMPANY OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of clerical/administration staff
for a new salary structure and two extra days annual leave.
BACKGROUND;
2. The Company is a member of the Walker Group which is owned by
British Steel. Following negotiations between the parties and a
Labour Court Recommendation which issued in August, 1990 Union
recognition was conceded by the Company. A procedural agreement
was negotiated in June, 1991. Subsequently the Union submitted a
claim for a new salary structure based on an incremental scale.
The Company is prepared to revise the present salary scale on the
understanding that it would be merit based rather than an
incremental scale. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 28th January, 1991. Conciliation conferences
were held on the 14th June and 5th November, 1991 but no agreement
was reached. The issue was referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 29th November, 1991. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 16th January, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On many occasions the Union sought, but did not receive,
details of the existing wage scales operating in the Company.
Many workers have been in the Company's employment for some
years and were not aware of their grade. Based on the
information available to it the Union put forward a claim for
new salary scales as follows:-
Grade 3 £8,000X10 - £10,500
" 4 9,000X10 - 12,000
" 5 10,500X10 - 14,000
" 6 12,000X10 - 15,000
" 7 13,000X10 - 17,000
" 8 14,500X10 - 18,500
" 9 16,000X10 - 21,000
These scales to a large extent reflected the pay scales
applying in the Company. The Company's proposed scales
(details supplied to the Court) mean that some workers would
lose money as they are already in receipt of more than the
Company's proposed maximum. The Company's offer of a 10%
increase on the maximum of its proposed scale is not
acceptable to the Union. However the Union is agreeable to
have the last two points on the scale based on merit,
conditional on the Union's scale being conceded.
2. Substantial rationalisation has taken place in the
Company. Workers have left and not been replaced,
redundancies have taken place and there are proposals for
amalgamations which will require substantial co-operation from
the workers concerned. The British Steel Corporation is one
of the largest multinationals in the steel business, and
should be in a position to pay good wages. The scales which
the Union are suggesting, because they reflect existing wage
levels, will not require substantial increases across the
board. They will require discussion on assimilation of
individuals based on their length of service, years of
experience, and work of equal value. There is no major cost
to the Company by the establishment of the proposed Union
scales.
3. The Union is claiming two extra days annual leave on the
basis that the annual leave entitlement in most comparable
employments is twenty five. An increase of two days holidays
would merely bring the annual leave entitlements of the
workers concerned into line with other steel companies in the
Group.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer to increase the maximum of the scales
by 10% has increased the earning potential of the various
grades. The pay scales in the Company are comparable with
those which apply throughout the industry generally (details
supplied to the Court). The same pay scales apply on a group
wide basis. Management accepts that confusion existed
concerning the different places of some workers on the scale,
and the different grades held, as both the pay scales and
grades were introduced into an already existing situation
where no formal pay structure existed. Following discussions
between the parties, the scales and grades were eventually
clarified and workers below scale were brought up onto scale.
Workers being paid above the scale rates were not affected.
Scales are based on a grading system which exists on a Group
wide basis and are based on a formal assessment of the content
of each individual job. In addition to wage scales staff also
enjoy benefits such as a non-contributory pension scheme and
free canteen. Some more senior employees have company cars.
2. Workers progress along the present scales on a merit based
system. One element of the union's claim is that progression
be on an incremental basis. The Company regards incremental
scales as being inefficient. They reward service, not
competence or effort, whereas merit based scales give an
incentive to perform. Merit based scales are a core element
of the Company's remuneration policy and are also a core
element of the Group's policy in this regard. The Company
regard the merit system as being essential to enable it to
compete successfully in the market place. It is inherently
more fair than incremental schemes as it rewards employees for
performance and not simply for service. Incremental scales
are regarded as being totally unsuited to the Company's needs.
3. The Union's claim is at variance with the terms of the
P.E.S.P., because the claim is a cost increasing one.
Negotiations with the Union first started during the currency
of the P.N.R. and continued through the P.E.S.P. The rates of
pay are not below those appropriate to the industry generally.
The Union's claim if conceded, would place the Company at a
serious competitive disadvantage vis a vis 'sister' companies
and other competitors.
4. The annual holiday entitlement in the Company of 21 days
is comparable with other similar employments and an increase
is not warranted or justifiable. The Union's claim that 25
days is the norm in the steel industry is not correct.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It takes the view that the Company's proposals do not accord
sufficiently with general practice as to clerical and
administrative salary arrangements. It therefore recommends that
the Company proceed to negotiate with the Union on the basis of
the proposals made by the Union which appear to contain elements
which meet the Company's requirements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
10th February, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.