Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92148 Case Number: LCR13652 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SWIFT MARKETING - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning a claim by the Union for an increase in basic rates of pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made but does not
consider that the work done by the Company is such as to warrant
comparison with the firm quoted to such an extent as to establish
a fixed relationship. However having regard to the range of work
being done by the operatives on the Company the Court is of the
opinion that an increase in current rates of #5 per week is
warranted. The Court recommends that the Company pay this
increase with effect from 1st April, 1992.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92148 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13652
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SWIFT MARKETING
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning a claim by the Union for an increase in
basic rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of shop
furnishings/fittings and employs in the region of 50 people. The
current rates of pay within the Company are as follows:-
Chargehand #5.21 per hour
Carpenter #4.649 per hour
General Operative #4.18 per hour.
In 1990 the workers in the Company were recruited into the Union.
The Union immediately entered into negotiations with the
management on the subject of an increase in rates of pay. At that
time the Company was in the process of moving premises and
indicated that it would look into the possibility of introducing a
productivity-related bonus scheme. The Company made no further
proposals concerning a bonus scheme and the Union re-iterated its
claim for an increase in wages. The dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission on 22nd
March, 1991. Conciliation conferences were held on 26th April and
8th November, 1991 in which agreement was not reached. The issue
was referred to the Labour Court on 9th March, 1992 under 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on 10th April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The range of work being carried out by the workers
concerned is virtually the same as that carried out in the
Display and Exhibition Industry. It is this industry which
the Union is using as a comparator in its claim for an
increase in rates of pay. The rates in the Display and
Exhibition Industry are as follows:-
Chargehands - #5.50 per hour
Craftsmen - #4.80 per hour
Semi-skilled - #4.70 per hour
General Operatives - #4.40 per hour.
These rates are considerably higher than those paid to the
workers within the Company for work which is similar in
nature to the work carried out by display and exhibition
workers. The Company does not take into consideration workers
who, though not qualified as craftsmen, are semi-skilled. If
a worker is not a craftsman he/she can only be classified as a
general operative which, in the Union's opinion, is very
unfair.
2. The Company is a very successful one and the Union accepts
that, by the very nature of the work carried out, the business
is seasonal. This however may affect the numbers employed but
should not in the long-term affect the basic rate of pay. The
rates paid to the workers do not reflect the skill of the
workers and are considerably lower than those of workers in
comparable companies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot accept the Unions chosen comparator as
a correct comparator. Though the skills used in both the
Company and the display industry are similar, their
application is different. The Company is not in competition
with the Display and Exhibition Industry. The Company is
classed by the I.D.A. as a furniture manufacture and its rates
of pay are in line with the industry norm.
2. As the Union's claim is a cost increasing one, it is
precluded under the terms of the P.E.S.P.
3. The cost of labour is one of the Company's greatest
expenses. An increase in rates of pay would dramatically
increase this cost and could damage the Company's
competitiveness within the market.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made but does not
consider that the work done by the Company is such as to warrant
comparison with the firm quoted to such an extent as to establish
a fixed relationship. However having regard to the range of work
being done by the operatives on the Company the Court is of the
opinion that an increase in current rates of #5 per week is
warranted. The Court recommends that the Company pay this
increase with effect from 1st April, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
13th May, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS/J.C.