Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9464 Case Number: LCR14549 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CLONMEL HEALTHCARE LIMITED - and - EIGHT WORKERS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Review of clerical/administrative rates of pay.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
accepts the Company's contention that the claim is a
cost-increasing claim and is covered by the terms of the P.C.W.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9464 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14549
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 2O(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CLONMEL HEALTHCARE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
EIGHT WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Review of clerical/administrative rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in Clonmel in 1972 and
manufacturers generic drugs. It employs a total of 180
workers. The dispute concerns 8 workers in the secretarial/
clerical/administrative grades who are seeking a 20% pay
increase.
The Union first raised the issue with the Company in early
1991. No agreement was reached and the dispute was twice
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. The Company
refused to take part in a conciliation conference and on 1st
February, 1994, the dispute was referred by the Union to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th August,
1994, (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company stated on a number of occasions that it
would review the pay rates of the workers concerned but
has refused to do so. The claim has been ongoing since
1991.
2. The pay rates for the workers are considerably less than
those of other workers in similar grades in comparable
companies. In addition, the workers have acquired
additional work loads and responsibilities without any
corresponding pay increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is in a very competitive market. It has
given a number of special pay increases over the years,
apart from those paid under the National Agreements. At
a conciliation conference in 1990 the Company stated
that no further special reviews would arise.
2. The wages paid to the workers concerned compare
favourably with other similar companies for the work
involved. The claim is cost-increasing and, as such, is
precluded under the Programme for Competitiveness and
Work (P.C.W.).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
accepts the Company's contention that the claim is a
cost-increasing claim and is covered by the terms of the P.C.W.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./M.M. ___________
Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.