Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94378 Case Number: LCR14529 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LIEBHERR CONTAINER CRANES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Pay structure for new employees.
Recommendation:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions, oral and
written, of the parties the Court is satisfied that the Company
has established reasonable grounds for the introduction of a new
wage structure for new employees.
The Court also considers that the proposals put forward by the
I.R.O., dated 29th April, 1994, contain the basis for a resolution
of the dispute.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that these proposals be amended
as follows;
Group 2 Basic Rate 75%
Group 3 Basic Rate 83%
Group 4 Basic Rate 90%
The Court recommends that these amended proposals be accepted by
the parties, subject to further local negotiations as may be
required, as to the composition of all the various groups.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94378 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14529
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LIEBHERR CONTAINER CRANES LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Pay structure for new employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in Killarney in 1958 and
currently employs approximately 265 workers. It is engaged
in the construction of container and harbour cranes. The
dispute concerns the Company's proposal for restructured
rates of pay for future employees.
In April 1993, a Labour Cost Control Scheme (LCCS) was agreed
between Company and Union. The Company agreed to maintain
the earnings of existing workers but claimed that it could
not afford to pay similar wages to new employees if the
Company was to remain competitive.
A new structure was proposed by the Company, relating all
grades to grade 5 which was equivalent to 100%, of the basic
wage of #5.60 per hour. The proposal was rejected by the
Union and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission in September 1993.
Four conciliation conferences followed. At the fourth
conciliation conference the Industrial Relation Officer (IRO)
put forward proposals (Appendix 1) which the Union and
Company negotiating teams indicated they would recommend for
acceptance.
The Union rejected the proposal. A further conciliation
conference on 1st June, 1994 brought no agreement and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12th July, 1994
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 20th July, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union had only agreed the rate for group 5 at the
conciliation conference. The differential between the
existing group 5 and the proposed new pay rate for that
group is 40p per hour. This differential should apply
as a flat rate to all groups and not as a percentage.
2. The proposed new rates are not acceptable. They are
considerably below present wages. New workers will be
expected to do the same work as current workers who do a
wide variety of jobs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company cannot afford to continue paying its current
rate of pay if it is to remain competitive. It
employs a considerable number of workers in the area.
Unless the Company reduces its labour costs a large
number of jobs could be lost.
2. The proposed new rates of pay, whilst less than current
rates, would compare very favourably with other
employment in the area. The new rates would also
reflect the relative skills of the workers At present a
floor cleaner gets #251.90 per week whilst a fully
qualified maintenance fitter gets #281.46.
3. The proposed percentage differential, between current
and new wages, would be of more benefit to lower-paid
workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions, oral and
written, of the parties the Court is satisfied that the Company
has established reasonable grounds for the introduction of a new
wage structure for new employees.
The Court also considers that the proposals put forward by the
I.R.O., dated 29th April, 1994, contain the basis for a resolution
of the dispute.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that these proposals be amended
as follows;
Group 2 Basic Rate 75%
Group 3 Basic Rate 83%
Group 4 Basic Rate 90%
The Court recommends that these amended proposals be accepted by
the parties, subject to further local negotiations as may be
required, as to the composition of all the various groups.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.