Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9214 Case Number: LCR13602 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COCA-COLA ATLANTIC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Restoration of differentials.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written submissions of the parties
together with their verbal arguments considers that when the
original pay structure was replaced by the grading structure, the
concept of differentials was superseded by the concept of "job
value" as determined by grades 1 to 6.
It is inherent in any grading structure that employees can have
their job re-evaluated to reflect the job content/value and may as
a result be regraded. This happened in the case of the
supervisors.
The same procedure is available to the claimants and they should
allow their jobs to be formally re-assessed without further delay.
As an alternative, the employees should enter into direct
negotiations with management using I.C.T.U. and/or other expert
third party assistance to resolve their grievances.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9214 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13602
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: COCA-COLA ATLANTIC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Restoration of differentials.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1980 the Company reached agreement with the clerical and
administration workers in respect of a salary and grading
structure with agreed minimum and maximum rates of pay. In 1982
agreement was reached with the plant workers which resulted in
general workers and craftsmen being incorporated into the salary
and grading structure 1 to 5. A new grade, 3A was added to the
grading structure to accommodate chargehands. In 1987 the Company
introduced a job evaluation system. A job evaluation committee
was established and trained. All jobs in the
clerical/administration and supervisory areas were submitted to
the committee for evaluation. The workers here concerned declined
to become involved in this job evaluation exercise and therefore
their jobs were not evaluated at that time. In 1990 the
production supervisors sought to have their jobs re-evaluated.
This evaluation resulted in the regrading of their jobs from grade
5 to grade 6. Jobs in grade 6 prior to the evaluation were
specialist jobs such as that of professional engineer. The
Unions' claim that the Company's decision to regrade the
production supervisors resulted in the long established
relationship between the grades being altered. The Unions
submitted a claim for the restoration of the differentials. The
Company rejected the claim. Local level discussion failed to
resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission on 16th October, 1991. A conciliation
conference was held on 12th November, 1991 and as no agreement
could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court hearing took place on
12th February, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job evaluation system failed to resolve the issue
because the Hay system of job evaluation is not suitable to
evaluate production related jobs. The main factor in this
system is management responsibility. It does not take account
of technical ability and flexibility, factors which are a
major part of production related jobs.
2. All wage increases agreed for the plant workers in
respect of productivity and flexibility were passed on to the
supervisors. The workers recognised that the differentials
could not, or should not be altered.
3. The flexibility of the operation depends on co-operation
between all categories of workers employed in the plant. The
maintenance of the differentials is important for this
co-operation to continue.
4. The level of responsibility for production supervisors
has not increased.
5. The Company gave assurances that the differentials would
not be widened.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The supervisors were regraded because there has been
significant change in their jobs since the initial evaluation
in 1987. If the Company were to concede a relativity claim
based on fixed differentials it could never again change the
grades of any job regardless of how much the job changed.
2. In 1987 a system of job evaluation was introduced in
response to the concern of employees for a fair and impartial
way of determining the appropriate grade for both existing and
future jobs. Jobs can only move from one grade to another by
way of a systematic job evaluation procedure. Jobs cannot
change grade by negotiation.
3. The workers concerned in this claim are among the best
paid industrial workers in the country.
4. There is no agreement with the Unions on differentials.
5. The Company's expansion programme will result in the
creation of 80 permanent jobs. This will result in continuing
change in job roles. A systematic method of job evaluation is
essential to ensure that these jobs are properly graded.
6. The Company has made sustained and strenuous efforts to
resolve this issue in the context of job evaluation and other
payment systems such as skill/knowledge based pay. The
Company are prepared to enter into detailed discussion with
the Union on these matters.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written submissions of the parties
together with their verbal arguments considers that when the
original pay structure was replaced by the grading structure, the
concept of differentials was superseded by the concept of "job
value" as determined by grades 1 to 6.
It is inherent in any grading structure that employees can have
their job re-evaluated to reflect the job content/value and may as
a result be regraded. This happened in the case of the
supervisors.
The same procedure is available to the claimants and they should
allow their jobs to be formally re-assessed without further delay.
As an alternative, the employees should enter into direct
negotiations with management using I.C.T.U. and/or other expert
third party assistance to resolve their grievances.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
23rd March, 1992 ----------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman