Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93679 Case Number: LCR14340 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LOCTITE IRELAND LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the application of the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) to a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is
satisfied that neither the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
nor his clarification could reasonably have been interpreted as
disbarring the claimant from the benefits of P.E.S.P.
The Rights Commissioner's reference in his clarification to
"automatic incremental increases" is interpreted by the Court as
relating only to the annual increments applicable to the Junior
Management Grade. Accordingly, the Court recommends that phase 2
and 3 of the P.E.S.P. be applied to the claimant's salary by the
Company from the appropriate dates.
The Court further recommends that if the final salary position of
the claimant is not resolved through the mechanisms envisaged by
the Rights Commissioner by the end of July 1994, the parties
should agree to submit the matter to binding arbitration as also
provided for by the Rights Commissioner.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93679 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14340
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LOCTITE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the application of the terms of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) to a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker, commenced employment with the company in
April, 1979. On 28th November, 1990 she applied for a
re-grading of her position and this became the subject of a
Rights Commissioner hearing on 27th March, 1992. The Right's
Commissioner in his recommendation (DC9/92) issued on 14th
April, 1992 recommended:-
" The Company's offer of an increment equivalent should
be substituted by the assimilation of the claimant to
the appropriate incremental point on the Junior
Management salary scale, i.e. #18,096 p.a. with
retrospective application to 1st January, 1991.
This salary level should be maintained for the next 12
months, during which period the Company and the Union
should further negotiate and finalise this issue, under
the auspices of the impending Job Evaluation Report
and/or their Joint Comprehensive Agreement."
2. The worker, following clarification from the Rights
Commissioner, was placed on a singular salary scale of
#18,096 from 16th June, 1992 with no automatic incremental
increases applying pending the resolution of the claim under
the proposed restructuring as outlined in the revised
comprehensive agreement. On 17th June, 1993, the worker
sought the application of phases 2 and 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The Company
informed the worker that she was on a personal scale and it
was awaiting the commencement of negotiations on the issue.
3. The issue was referred by the Union to the Labour Court
under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 7th
December, 1993. The Court investigated the matter on 4th
February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is refusing to implement the terms of the
P.E.S.P. for the worker.
2. The Company has reversed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation by reducing the worker's wage below the top
point of the clerical grade III which she was on prior to the
Rights Commissioner's hearing.
3. If the worker had remained on clerical grade III or
point 9 of the junior management scale, she would have been
financially better off over this period of time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation provided for
the resolution of the workers position in line with
negotiations on the new clerical grades.
2. The Union's apparent intransigence in negotiating the
clerical grade restructuring has not assisted the speedy
settlement of the case.
3. The Company's refusal in the circumstances to pay any
additional percentage increase to the worker was reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is
satisfied that neither the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
nor his clarification could reasonably have been interpreted as
disbarring the claimant from the benefits of P.E.S.P.
The Rights Commissioner's reference in his clarification to
"automatic incremental increases" is interpreted by the Court as
relating only to the annual increments applicable to the Junior
Management Grade. Accordingly, the Court recommends that phase 2
and 3 of the P.E.S.P. be applied to the claimant's salary by the
Company from the appropriate dates.
The Court further recommends that if the final salary position of
the claimant is not resolved through the mechanisms envisaged by
the Rights Commissioner by the end of July 1994, the parties
should agree to submit the matter to binding arbitration as also
provided for by the Rights Commissioner.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st February, 1994. Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./A.L. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.