Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93327 Case Number: LCR14219 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ESTUARY FUELS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the upgrading of a clerical worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written statements does not find that a
case has been put forward to warrant concession of the union's
claim.
Accordingly the claim is rejected. The Court notes that overtime
and expenses payments applicable to clerical staff are and have
been paid to the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93327 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14219
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ESTUARY FUELS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the upgrading of a clerical worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim is on behalf of a worker employed as Assistant
to the Operations' Manager at the Company's Foynes depot. The
worker was recruited to the Company in 1985. In 1986, the
Union on behalf of 9 workers (including the claimant) lodged a
claim for improved salary scales. The claim was investigated
at that time and disposed of (details supplied). The claimant
was granted a wage increase and it was agreed that his salary
would be reviewed each January.
2. In January, 1991 the Union made a claim for a salary
increase on behalf of the worker. The claim was rejected by
the Company and it was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. The parties agreed at a conciliation conference
to engage the Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.) to evaluate
and report on the worker's job. The I.P.C. produced its
report in August, 1991. The report concluded that the salary
applying was appropriate for the job in question.
3. The I.P.C. report was rejected by the Union and the claim
was again referred to the Labour Relations Commission. No
progress was made at a further conciliation conference in May,
1993, and the claim was referred to the Labour Court on 25th
May, 1993 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court investigation took place in Limerick on
2nd September, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to both
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was recruited in 1985 to a management position
with the Company. This is reflected in his duties and
responsibilities but not in his salary. The Company are now
trying to suggest that he is and always has been a clerical
worker, while all documentary and other evidence shows that
the worker had always been part of the management grouping
(details supplied). The worker's salary has continuously
fallen behind his colleagues because of the Company's failure
to carry out the agreed annual review.
2. The Union rejects the I.P.C. report. The report err in a
number of fundamental areas (details supplied). The worker
has been treated unfairly by the Company and is the only
worker from the 1987 pay agreement who has lost out. His
salary is now half that of senior staff and less than clerical
workers who work a shorter week. The worker is seeking a
salary of #18,000 per annum. His current salary of #13,900 is
out of line in terms of his agreement with the Company and his
relativity with other workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has been employed by the Company for 7 years
and in that time his salary has been the subject of a Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation, a Labour Court Recommendation,
2 conciliation conferences and an I.P.C. report. The Company
is willing to accept the I.P.C. report which bears out the
Company's position. The worker's duties are clerical and he
is paid at the maximum point of the clerical scale.
2. In assessing a salary scale for any worker, the Company
must evaluate both internal and external comparisons.
Internally the worker's job is paid appropriately compared to
other jobs in the Company. The worker is paid at the same
rate as other clerical staff. A recent I.B.E.C. salary survey
in which 575 jobs were surveyed across the manufacturing and
distribution sectors ranks the worker's salary as 50th
percentile. This makes the worker's salary comparable to
salaries for similar jobs across a wider spectrum of companies
and industries.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written statements does not find that a
case has been put forward to warrant concession of the union's
claim.
Accordingly the claim is rejected. The Court notes that overtime
and expenses payments applicable to clerical staff are and have
been paid to the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
29th October, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.