Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93416 Case Number: AD9387 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: P A T (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 94/1993.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not find a case has been made to warrant
amendment of the findings of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
rejects the appeal of the union.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93416 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8793
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: P A T (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W.
94/1993.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company specialises in developing control and
monitoring systems. It was set up in 1974 and employs 27
workers. The Company receives material from Germany which it
manufactures, tests, and returns to its German parent Company.
All of the Company's sales are inter-Company.
2. A worker was appointed to the position of material handler
in the stores department in January, 1993. The worker
approached the Company on 14th January, to dispute the wage
rate for the position. The parties could not agree on a wage
rate and the dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners
Service for investigation and recommendation.
3. The background to the worker's appointment was that the
storeman informed the Company in December, 1992 that he was
having difficulties carrying out his duties because of a
problem with his back. The Company created a new position of
material handler for the storeman. Another newly created
position of material handler was offered to the worker. The
worker's wages rose from #182.46 as a Quality Auditor to
#189.92. The now defunct storeman's position carried the wage
of #275 which was personal to the then incumbent. This worker
carried his rate to the new material controller position. The
Union sought an increased rate for the material handler
position.
4. A Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 29th
April, 1993 and recommendation C.W. 94/93 as follows issued on
17th May, 1993:
"I recommend that the worker accepts that his rate of pay
determined by the Company is reasonable".
(The worker's name was mentioned in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
5. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation to the Labour Court by letter dated 25th June,
1993. The Labour Court heard the appeal in Limerick under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 2nd
September, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was offered a position in the stores which he
was happy to take up. The worker is dissatisfied with the
rate of pay particularly when measured against the previous
incumbent's rate of #275. The worker's new duties are onerous
(details supplied) and his promotion only gained him a 4.3%
increase.
2. The worker's new pay rate is equivalent to that of a
supervisor. The term supervisor in the Company is misleading
in that the supervisors do not plan production schedules nor
have the full range of duties which is normally associated
with the grade of supervisor. Comparison with the grade of
supervisor is misleading when taking account of the full range
of the worker's duties.
3. The Union is not seeking that the worker's rate be
increased by the #85 differential which exists between him and
the previous storeperson. However, the Union is seeking that
the worker's wage be adjusted to a rate which would more
reasonably reflect the additional responsibilities of the new
post.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The worker's claim is clearly based on the fact that the
previous person in the store's function was paid a higher
rate. There is no validity in such a comparison in that the
previous storeman had 15 years' service and his rate is
anomalous within the Company (details supplied). In addition
the worker's new duties do not encompass the broad range of
activities carried out by the previous worker who still
retains the greater responsibility.
2. The worker accepted the position of material handler while
clearly aware in advance of the rate of pay for the job. This
rate of pay is the same as that paid to line supervisors who
are responsible for the supervision of assembly operators and
the production operation.
3. The Company has treated the worker fairly in accordance
with good personnel practice. The Company operates in a
highly competitive environment and it cannot afford to absorb
any further cost-increasing claims. Concession of this claim
would undermine the Company's pay structure and lead to
repercussive claims throughout the plant.
DECISION:
5. The Court does not find a case has been made to warrant
amendment of the findings of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
rejects the appeal of the union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
19th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.