Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95472 Case Number: LCR14995 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WESSEL CABLE LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of 7 workers represented by the Union's clerical branch for:- 1. Increase of 4% on wage rates with effect from the 1st of April, 1994, 2. Bonus of 1 week's gross pay in Summer, 3. £5 forklift allowance.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions and
arguments presented in this case. The Court has also taken note
of the background to the claim and of the various increases
granted, over the last few years, to the claimants.
The Court also took into account the reasons given by the Company
for the payment of a productivity payment to operatives in the
firm.
The Court has concluded that the claim for the same payment to the
claimants in this dispute is not well-founded and, accordingly,
does not recommend its concession.
The Court also finds the claim for payment of fork-lift driving
allowance and one week's pay in Summer as unsustainable.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95472 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14995
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WESSEL CABLE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 7 workers represented by the Union's
clerical branch for:-
1. Increase of 4% on wage rates with effect from the 1st of
April, 1994,
2. Bonus of 1 week's gross pay in Summer,
3. £5 forklift allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of a group of 7 workers, 4 foremen, 1
lab technician and 2 clerical workers. The Union contends
that as the group has become recently unionised, claims in
excess of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW)
are valid. The 4% increase is being sought on the grounds
that the same increase was granted to all employees "on the
shop floor". The Union is also seeking the bonus payment in
Summer as it has been conceded to other categories of workers
such as general operatives, quality control employees and
canteen staff. The claim for the £5 forklift allowance
relates only to the foremen and is on the grounds that it is
paid to all other forklift operators.
Regarding the 4% increase, the Company responded that the
claimants' pay is not out of line with similar workers in
other companies and that their increases over the past 8
years far exceeded increases provided under National
Agreements over that time. The Company further stated that
the increases received by the claimants exceeded increases
(including the 4%) received by general operatives. The
Company's position on the bonus was that it was given to
certain categories of workers in return for productivity
increases, and was self-financing. Similar productivity had
not been obtained from the claimants. Regarding the forklift
allowance, the Company maintained that it is incorporated in
the foremen's basic rate of pay as such duties have always
formed part of the duties of the position.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission
following which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of August, 1995 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute, in Mullingar,
on the 15th of November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants received a pay increase of 2% in April,
1994. At the same time, the hourly-paid employees
received an increase of 6%. When the issue was raised,
the Company responded that 2% comprised the 1st Phase of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP)
and that the extra 4% conceded to the latter group was
in return for "productivity". This response is
unacceptable as the claimants have given at least equal
productivity increases in recent years.
2. The productivity conceded by workers on the shop floor
is actually driven and enforced by the foremen who have
been refused a share in its benefit.
3. Clerical staff have given substantial productivity in
their own right. They too are entitled to the same
increases on the same grounds as the foremen because:-
(a) The Company always insists on paying the same
increases to members of the same "group". For
instance the canteen operative got the extra 4% and
other "productivity" payments.
(b) The Company itself insists that the clerical staff
and foremen are part of the same "Staff Group".
(They insisted strongly on this point during the
period when Union recognition was being
negotiated).
4. The extra week's pay in Summer should be paid as it was
originally conceded in return for a 4-cycle shift, in
1989, and the workers now seeking it carried the same
obligations as those who received the bonus. Although
the Company disputes the origin of the payment, claiming
that it was a reward for productivity, the claimants are
entitled to it on the basis that they have contributed
towards the implementation of that same productivity.
5. The £5 forklift allowance should be conceded as the
foremen drive, or are available to drive, forklifts,
and, accordingly, are entitled to the same benefits as
the forklift drivers.
6. The Company quoted figures which purported to show that
the percentage increases over the years for the
claimants were higher than for hourly-paid employees.
These statistics paint an inaccurate picture of the
situation and are unreliable (details supplied to the
Court).
7. The workers' claims are not precluded by the Programme
for Competitiveness and Work (PCW), Clause 1 of which
states:-
"Except where otherwise agreed at local level, the
Agreement shall come into force on the expiry of
the Pay Agreement under the PESP in each individual
employment or industry and shall last for three
years".
The workers here concerned were never previously
represented by any Trade Union. They did not negotiate
their pay nor have they any Agreements. They were not
covered by any Agreements and, accordingly, there is no
agreement "to expire".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for the 4% increase is rejected on the
following grounds:-
(a) Since April of 1987 the recorded pay increases have
been as follows:
Foremen 51.1%
Clerical 40.6%
Laboratory 41.8%
Shop Floor 44.4%
National Agreements over this period would have
paid 23% (inclusive of Clause 3 of PESP).
Therefore, over this period all grades received
increases far in excess of the National Pay Awards.
In the case of the foremen, they received pay
increases nearly twice that paid by national
agreements and 7% more than received by the shop
floor. These figures show there is no basis for
the claim.
In addition, the average rate nationally for
production supervisors (a grade above foremen)
equates to £18,584.54. The average rate for the
Midlands Region equates to £18,956. Both rates are
lower than the current rate of £19,053 being paid
to foremen in the Company.
(b) It is not valid for these employees to claim such a
pay increase based on the fact that the shop floor
workers received same. In particular, the foremen
did not previously pursue such a claim probably
because their pay increases since 1987 have in fact
far exceeded those on the shop floor. For example,
in 1988, when the shop floor received an increase
of 10%, foremen received an increase of 13.12%, in
1989, when the shop floor received an increase of
2.65%, the foremen received an increase of 8.74%.
Also as members of staff, foremen receive
additional benefits such as VHI membership, the
Company staff Pension Scheme and additional
holidays (an extra day per year after 10 years up
to a maximum of 5 additional days). The latter
which was conceded in 1991, was not conceded to the
shop floor.
2. The point has been made by the Union that, as a newly
unionised group, the claimants are entitled to claim
increases in excess of the PCW. However, it has not
been proven, as is required, that they are substantially
out of line with comparators in other companies. Rather
than being out of line, they do significantly better
than similar groups in other companies. The foremen,
however, did have an opportunity to negotiate pay
increases on an annual basis with the manager of the
Company.
3. The foremen are not entitled to the £5 forklift
allowance for the following reasons:
(1) Forklift duties have always been part of their
function and are, therefore, included in their
basic rate of pay;
(2) The number of occasions on which foremen would
drive a forklift is very limited and would not
justify an additional £5 payment on to the basic
rate;
(3) This also is a claim for parity with the shop floor
which is not valid insofar as the foremen are paid
on a different basis, i.e., they are salaried
people and enjoy many privileges which do not
extend to the shop floor.
4. The Summer bonus, which is paid to factory operatives
was part of a comprehensive Labour Court Recommendation
covering a number of items such as productivity,
relating to the late 80s and early 90s. The shop floor
workers are not valid comparators insofar as foremen,
the laboratory technician and indeed the clerical worker
are paid on a different basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions and
arguments presented in this case. The Court has also taken note
of the background to the claim and of the various increases
granted, over the last few years, to the claimants.
The Court also took into account the reasons given by the Company
for the payment of a productivity payment to operatives in the
firm.
The Court has concluded that the claim for the same payment to the
claimants in this dispute is not well-founded and, accordingly,
does not recommend its concession.
The Court also finds the claim for payment of fork-lift driving
allowance and one week's pay in Summer as unsustainable.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
M.K./D.T. _________________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.