Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9219 Case Number: LCR13577 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: W. & C. MCDONNELL LTD - and - ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim by the Unions for the restoration of a pay differential between general operatives and craftsmen.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:-
(a) the Unions agree to enter into realistic negotiations
on all the items set-out in Appendix 2 of the Company's
submission.
(b) On receipt of this agreement the Company increase its
offer (at conciliation) to pay a lump sum from £500 to £850
to each of the claimants.
(c) Provided (a) and (b) are implemented negotiations
should commence immediately on the items in Appendix 2 and
on the rate of increase to the applied.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9219 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13577
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: W. & C. MCDONNELL LTD
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for the restoration of a pay
differential between general operatives and craftsmen.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures margarine and other food products
in Drogheda. It currently employs 60 general workers and 9
craft workers. In 1989 the Company closed down an oil refinery
plant adjacent to the main plant which resulted in redundancy
for 16 general operatives and 3 craftsmen. At that time the
Company introduced a major rationalisation programme which also
resulted in 15 general operative redundancies at the main plant.
When agreement on the rationalisation package was reached the
Company agreed to the payment of £850 gross to each general
operative covering retrospection and a 2.5% wage increase on the
general worker's basic pay, effective from 9th July, 1990. When
the Company commenced negotiations with the craft Unions on a
similar package it listed a number of changes required of
craftsmen to improve output and efficiency (details supplied to
the Court at appendix 2 of the Company submission). The Unions
claim that the pay differential between the craftsmen and the
general operatives must be restored. They further claim that
the increase is merited as the craftsmen are equally affected by
the rationalisation package agreed with the general operatives.
No agreement was reached at local level discussions and the
matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on 22nd
July, 1991. Conciliation Conferences were held on 10th October,
1991 and 21st October, 1991 at which the Company offered a
goodwill payment of £500 so that meaningful negotiations could
commence. This offer was rejected by the craftsmen. As no
agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 6th January, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on 18th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company awarded an increase in pay to general
operatives without reference to craftsmen employed in the
same establishment. It broke the well established
differential in pay between the two groups. The craft
workers are entitled to maintain this pay differential and
there is no reason why it should be broken.
2. The elements of the general operatives package which
have been agreed apply equally to craftsmen. Craftsmen
have also been affected by redundancies, changes in
equipment and work practices. Consequently craftsmen merit
the same increases as the general operatives.
3. The craftsmen have had no increase in pay outside the
national agreements since 1987. Over the years they have
responded to Company requests for flexibility and increased
efficiency. The major contribution already made by the
craftsmen should be rewarded without requests by the
Company for a further productivity deal before the pay
differential is restored.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The payment to the general operatives was given
as a result of agreement on considerable changes in work
practices (details supplied to the Court). To
automatically make the same payment to the craftsmen on the
basis of loss of pay differential with no agreed changes
would be unfair to the general operatives and could cause
severe industrial relations problems within the Company.
Claims for the restoration of pay differentials cannot be
entertained.
2. The changes currently being sought from craftsmen are
to some degree less than those sought from the general
operatives. Many of the changes sought are merely those
that most modern companies are seeking. No craftsmen will
be made redundant in the main plant which was not the case
with the general operatives.
3. Craftsmen are well remunerated and to increase their
earnings without any changes beneficial to the Company
would make it uncompetitive. The claim is contrary to the
terms and spirit of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:-
(a) the Unions agree to enter into realistic negotiations
on all the items set-out in Appendix 2 of the Company's
submission.
(b) On receipt of this agreement the Company increase its
offer (at conciliation) to pay a lump sum from £500 to £850
to each of the claimants.
(c) Provided (a) and (b) are implemented negotiations
should commence immediately on the items in Appendix 2 and
on the rate of increase to the applied.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
9th March, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.