Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93569 Case Number: LCR14328 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FLOGAS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Review of Salary Scales/Introduction of grading structures.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the manner of dealing with the salaries of
the Union and non Union staff as separate entities has created a
perception among Union staff that discrimination in treatment is
occurring. This situation does not help create a wholesome
industrial relations climate and can only give rise to continuing
dissension.
The Court considers that the Company should set about
standardising the pay arrangements as a matter of urgency, and
address anomalies which may have arisen.
The Court, therefore, recommends the parties immediately carry out
a review of the current salary structure to standardise the pay
arrangements and make arrangements to implement any changes
necessary in accordance with the provisions of the P.E.S.P.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93569 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14328
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FLOGAS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Review of Salary Scales/Introduction of grading structures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by 22 workers employed by the
Company in Drogheda, Co. Louth. The claim is for an increase in
clerical rates of pay and the introduction of a grading system.
The Company distributes liquefied petroleum gas (L.P.G.) and
commenced trading in 1977.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference took place on 5th August, 1993. No
agreement was reached. On 1st October, 1993 the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22nd
November, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The salary scale of the workers concerned is seriously
out of line with corresponding Irish and British companies in
the gas/petroleum industry. It is also out of line with
local companies in the Drogheda area (details supplied).
2. The Company is now the second largest supplier of liquid
gas in Ireland and the U.K. The contribution of the workers
concerned has been a major reason for this success but this
has never been acknowledged by the Company.
3. The continuous growth of the Company, including recent
restructuring, means that the workers concerned have
considerably more responsibilities than before, e.g.,
accounts, credit control, administration, etc. The Union has
for a number of years tried to have this added responsibility
reflected by an increase in salary and a proper grading
system for the workers concerned. The Company refuses to
negotiate. Salaries for directors of the Company increased
by 20% in the year to June 1993 (details supplied). The
Company's Annual Report for year ended June, 1993 states
that:
"The Company is in a strong position as the economy
comes out of recession, the Company will continue to
expand its operations through organic growth and
acquisition".
4. Employees in the terminal and distribution area in the
Company have salary scales comparable to the Company's major
Irish competitor The Company has refused to grant the
workers concerned a similar wage scale.
5. It has been reported to the Unions that employees have
been advised by management personnel that they would do much
better if they withdrew their membership of the Unions
concerned.
Management had to be requested to desist from this practice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The present salary scales for the workers concerned were
agreed with the Union. All phases of the P.E.S.P. have been
paid on the due dates, including clause 3. The claim by the
Union is in breach of the P.E.S.P.
2. Present market conditions mean that it is not possible
to meet the Unions' claim. A number of factors are
responsible, e.g., the liquid petroleum gas market is
stagnant, there is increased competition from new "low cost"
market operators, the market leader has rationalised its
operation. The Company's overheads are greater than its
competitors and must be reduced.
3. There is a commitment by the Company to review the
situation on the expiry of the P.E.S.P. in 1994. Concession
of the Unions' claim now could result in similar claims from
other employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that the manner of dealing with the salaries of
the Union and non Union staff as separate entities has created a
perception among Union staff that discrimination in treatment is
occurring. This situation does not help create a wholesome
industrial relations climate and can only give rise to continuing
dissension.
The Court considers that the Company should set about
standardising the pay arrangements as a matter of urgency, and
address anomalies which may have arisen.
The Court, therefore, recommends the parties immediately carry out
a review of the current salary structure to standardise the pay
arrangements and make arrangements to implement any changes
necessary in accordance with the provisions of the P.E.S.P.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th January, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. --------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.