Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92163 Case Number: LCR13667 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AUTOZERO LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rate of pay for a worker.
Recommendation:
9. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions considers there is
a claim by the employer which should be addressed by negotiation.
The Court therefore recommends the parties discuss the matter with
a view to reaching a mutally acceptable agreement.
In the event that agreement has not been reached within a period
of one month from the date of this recommendation the Court will
review the outcome of the discussions and make a recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92163 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13667
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AUTOZERO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the cold storage business and
employs 45 people at its plants in Dublin and Waterford.
3. The worker was one of five people employed in the maintenance
department in the Dublin plant. Following a reorganisation these
workers were made redundant in March, 1990 and the worker here
concerned agreed to a transfer to the stores area. He retained
his rate of pay which is approximately #50 a week greater than the
rate payable to storemen.
4. In May, 1991 the worker was assigned to other duties within
the stores following the loss of an order from a customer which
resulted in reorganisation. At that time the worker was advised
by the Company that it could not sustain paying him the higher
rate and offered to pay compensation in return for a reduction in
his rate.
5. The matter was subsequently raised formally with the Union.
The Union rejected the Company's offer on the basis that it was
agreed at the time of the original transfer that the worker would
retain his rate of pay on transfer. (The Company offered to pay
the worker a lump sum of #2,000 in return for a reduction of #33 a
week and that he would forego future pay increases until such time
as the storeman's rate of pay matched his).
6. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
9th January, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 2nd
March, 1992. As no agreement was reached the dispute, with the
consent of the parties, was referred by the Commission to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was
held on 7th April, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company has no record of any agreement whereby the
worker would retain his personal rate.
2. The work circumstances have changed for the worse and the
Company wishes to end the present anomalous position and pay
the rate appropriate to the job.
3. The Company is prepared to pay compensation for the
reduction but the Union has failed to enter into meaningful
negotiations on the matter. Accordingly the Court is asked to
recommend that the Union enter into negotiations on a
reduction in the worker's rate of pay.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The worker has 26.50 years service with the Company, 25 in
the maintenance department. At the time the workshop closed
he was offered the storeman's job and it was made clear that
he would not suffer any reduction in pay and that he would
retain his present rate on a personal basis.
2. This type of agreement is not unusual or unique in such
situations. It is unacceptable that the Company should now
expect the worker to accept a substantial cut in his wages.
The agreement is only two years old and, if the Company had a
concern with the gap in the rates, it had the opportunity then
to negotiate a buy-out or come to some other alternative
arrangement.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions considers there is
a claim by the employer which should be addressed by negotiation.
The Court therefore recommends the parties discuss the matter with
a view to reaching a mutally acceptable agreement.
In the event that agreement has not been reached within a period
of one month from the date of this recommendation the Court will
review the outcome of the discussions and make a recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
4th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.