Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91567 Case Number: LCR13523 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NEC SEMICONDUCTORS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a pay increase and the introduction of an incremental scale.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the issues arising from the
submissions made by the parties at the hearing. The first
question to be dealt with is the standing of the Union's claim
under the terms of the P.E.S.P. On this matter the Court is quite
satisfied that the claim falls to be dealt with on the same terms
as relate to newly organised Companies. The issue is perhaps
unduly complicated by the fact that the Union has chosen to divide
the claim into two parts - structures and wage levels.
On the basis of the submissions made the Court is of the opinion
that the review system as at present applied to this group of
staff in the Company is unsatisfactory. Furthermore on the
evidence supplied by the Company itself the range of payments
within the grades fall short of the overall averages for similar
workers in the region.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union's claim for a
defined incremental within the grade structure be conceded and
with this adjustment having been made that they negotiate to amend
the salaries on the basis of comparisons with rates for similar
workers elsewhere.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91567 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13523
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NEC SEMICONDUCTORS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a pay increase and the introduction of
an incremental scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located at Ballivor Co. Meath and employs 340
workers in the assembly of integration circuit boards. The claim
concerns 28 clerical workers. The Company has 4 clerical grades.
Increases within the scales are applied on the basis of a merit
assessment system. There are no fixed incremental points. In
March, 1991 the Union submitted a claim for an increase of £25
p.w. to the pay scales of each grade. The Union also claimed that
the scales should consist of regular and defined increments,
payable on a service basis, with appropriate credit for past
service. Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission on the 11th June, 1991. A
conciliation conference was held on the 18th September, 1991 but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 29th October,
1991. The Court investigated the dispute on the 25th November,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite numerous meetings the Company has made no
concessions on the Union's claim for pre-set and defined
increments based on years of service. The Union contends that
the payment structure for clerical employees in most
employments is based on incremental scales which yield
increases based on service as well as annual inflation or
"round" increases. The Union has undertaken a survey of 116
companies (details supplied to the Court). Only 16 Companies
of those surveyed did not have annual service increments.
2. The Company's system of performance related merit
increases is a most unjust one. The amount of increase is, in
theory, dictated by the result of a performance assessment
carried out by the employees' superiors. The effect of this
procedure is to cause anxiety and insecurity on an annual
basis. Workers are also encouraged not to reveal the amount
of their individual increase thus an unnatural and unhealthy
spirit of suspicion and unreality exists. Not one single
employee is in receipt of the maximum pay attaching to their
grade. One employee who has been in Grade III for nine years
is paid £203 though the grade runs from 175 to £225. The same
applies to others in various grades (details supplied to the
Court). The Union would have no objection to the payment of
merit awards in addition to a fair and defined incremental
scale. Neither would the Union object to an increment being
withheld as a disciplinary measure (subject to the safeguards
of a grievance procedure).
3. The increase of £25 p.w. sought by the Union is based on a
wide survey of pay rates for clerical workers in a range of
employments (details supplied to the Court). In the case of
all the comparators the maximum is automatically reached after
a defined period of service. Based on this comparison the
rates for the workers concerned fall well short of accepted
norms. The Union's claim is valid and would bring the rates
of pay of the workers concerned into line with what is
appropriate for the equivalent of the end of the P.N.R. The
P.E.S.P. increases should also apply from 1st July, 1991.
4. The Union rejects the Company's claim that the P.E.S.P.
precludes claims for increases in excess of its terms. Clause
6 of P.E.S.P. states "this agreement shall apply from the
expiry dates of current employer/union agreements". There is
no current employer/union agreement in force covering the
workers concerned, therefore the P.E.S.P. will not come into
force until such an agreement is reached.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The majority of the workers in the Company are members of
the Union. All operative grades are unionised as a condition
of employment and the clerical workers are unionised by
individual choice. Half the workers concerned with the
dispute were employed as operatives initially and are
therefore members of S.I.P.T.U. During the past number of
years the Company has negotiated a series of productivity
agreements with the Union which have included a number of
improvements in pay and conditions.
These negotiations have also resulted in the progressive
development of a performance appraisal scheme. Clerical
employees have at all times benefitted through the
improvements negotiated. An example of one improvement
already secured by this sector is a 37½ hour working week
conceded by the Company in 1980.
2. Alongside the performance appraisal scheme for operators,
the Company has a performance review scheme for salaried
staff. The pay review procedure for clerical employees is
essentially similar to both of these schemes. The Company has
always kept a relationship between the pay agreements with the
Union whether national agreement or otherwise, the pay
increases given to clerical employees and the pay increases
given to salaried employees. Increases to the workers
concerned over the past six years provided a net increase in
wages of between 2% and 3%. There are 30 workers in the
clerical grade. They are in receipt of rates of pay which are
directly comparable with those paid in the region generally
(details supplied to the Court). The workers concerned
benefit from increases under wage agreements/rounds and from
an annual performance appraisal increase. The rates of pay
for the workers concerned are in the top quartile for the
area. The Union's claim for a £25 increase in the basic rate
is not justified, considering the basic rate of pay and
excellent conditions enjoyed by the workers concerned.
3. The Company is willing to discuss any improvements which
the Union might suggest for the performance appraisal scheme.
Currently there is an appeal mechanism in place if a worker is
dissatisfied with the appraisal which he/she has gained. The
Company is prepared to enter into discussions with the Union
but only under the strict auspices of the P.E.S.P. If
Management were to concede this claim the repercussions would
be detrimental to the Company. There is a fair and equitable
pay structure in place for the various categories of
employees. Management asks the Court to reject the Union's
claim on the basis that rates of pay and conditions of
employment for the workers concerned are excellent and on the
basis of the Company's objection to the introduction of an
incremental pay scale.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the issues arising from the
submissions made by the parties at the hearing. The first
question to be dealt with is the standing of the Union's claim
under the terms of the P.E.S.P. On this matter the Court is quite
satisfied that the claim falls to be dealt with on the same terms
as relate to newly organised Companies. The issue is perhaps
unduly complicated by the fact that the Union has chosen to divide
the claim into two parts - structures and wage levels.
On the basis of the submissions made the Court is of the opinion
that the review system as at present applied to this group of
staff in the Company is unsatisfactory. Furthermore on the
evidence supplied by the Company itself the range of payments
within the grades fall short of the overall averages for similar
workers in the region.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union's claim for a
defined incremental within the grade structure be conceded and
with this adjustment having been made that they negotiate to amend
the salaries on the basis of comparisons with rates for similar
workers elsewhere.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
15th January, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.