Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95606 Case Number: LCR15036 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE;TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFF ASSOCIATION |
Establishment of wage structure for engineers.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that given its recommendation regarding
recognition of engineers and subsequent clarification it would be
meaningless if the limit of £27,500 was included in local
agreements was to be maintained.
The Court recommends that the Union and the Company using the
procedures agreed, discuss this issue and seek to find an
acceptable arrangement which will take account of the requirements
of all concerned.
The Court further recommends that the parties negotiate within the
current productivity discussions and seek to address the
engineers' claims.
These negotiations to be completed within a period of 4 months.
In the event that agreement on rates of pay for engineers is not
reached in this timescale the Court recommends that an agreed
assessor be appointed to recommend on pay/wages for engineers.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95606 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15036
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFF ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Establishment of wage structure for engineers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute before the Court involves 60/70 engineers
employed by Iarnrod Eireann and represented by
MSF/TSSA. The unions want to establish a wage
structure for engineers. In 1992, a number of
engineers joined MSF because they needed the support
and expertise of the union to represent the interest of
engineers as a group and to negotiate wages and
conditions of employment in line with the going rate,
in particular, the Public Service rates and conditions.
2. The Union claims that the Company completed a
restructuring of the engineering group without any
input from the Union side. A small number of senior
engineers got increases ranging from 5% to 12.5%. The
majority of engineers got no increase.
3. The Company state that it has not afforded negotiation
rights to MSF to represent engineers in the Company.
The matter of negotiation rights for engineers was
before the Court in December, 1994 (LCR14654 refers).
As a result of LCR14654 new negotiation procedures were
introduced from 1st September, 1995.
4. The Court recommended, following clarification, that
negotiation rights be granted to MSF to represent
"Professional Engineers", the distinction being that
engineers went into and out of general management
positions in the Company. The Company sought
confirmation from MSF that all existing Company/Trade
Union agreements would be accepted and honoured. The
agreements include (a) an existing agreement which
limits collective negotiation rights to
management/executive staff with salaries below £27,725
and (b) the terms of the P.C.W. The Union was not
prepared to give this confirmation and, accordingly,
the Company has not conceded negotiation rights to MSF.
5. As no agreement was possible between the parties the
Union requested that the dispute be referred to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Unions agreed to be bound by
the decision of the Court. The Court investigated the
dispute on 27th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The salary scales for engineers in Iarnrod Eireann were
not negotiated by a Trade Union and are, therefore, not
restricted by the terms of the P.C.W.
2. The Union has proposed a salary structure for engineers
employed by the Company which will bring them into line
with other employers in the Public Service such as the
ESB, Bord Gais, Telecom Eireann and Fobairt.
3. The Union is proposing the following pay structures for
engineers in the Company:-
A - £16,000 to £26,000 - Recruitment scale
B - £20,000 to £30,000 - Career scale
C - £24,000 to £35,000 - Promotional scales for Senior
engineers
D - £27,000 to £38,000 - Assistant Divisional
Engineers, Project engineers.
E - £30,000 to £43,000 - Divisional engineer.
4. The Union would be agreeable to the appointment of an
agreed independent assessor to recommend appropriate
pay scales for engineers employed by Iarnrod Eireann.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is a cost increasing one in respect of staff
who are receiving the pay increases under Clause 2 of
the P.C.W. The terms of the P.C.W. have been accepted
by the I.C.T.U. which includes the unions operating
within the Company. The claim, therefore, is in breach
of Clause 5 of the P.C.W..
2. The Company accepted Labour Court Recommendation 14654.
The recommendation did not change however, the existing
agreement in relation to the salary limit of £27,725
for collective negotiation.
3. The Company has not received any claim from TSSA in
relation to engineers in the Company, nor from the
C.I.E./I.C.T.U. Group of Unions which is the
co-ordinating body for all I.C.T.U. affiliated unions
within the Company.
4. As a result of re-organisation in its engineering
section, and the resultant savings, the Company was
able to implement salary increases to senior engineers
in addition to increases due under the P.C.W
5. The Company cannot afford any increase in payroll
costs. The engineers not covered in the recent review
will, along with other executive, clerical and
administration staff, benefit from the productivity
deal which is at present being progressed with the
Trade Unions. The next phase of the P.C.W. is due on
the 15th December, 1995 and will cost the Company an
additional £3 million per annum.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that given its recommendation regarding
recognition of engineers and subsequent clarification it would be
meaningless if the limit of £27,500 was included in local
agreements was to be maintained.
The Court recommends that the Union and the Company using the
procedures agreed, discuss this issue and seek to find an
acceptable arrangement which will take account of the requirements
of all concerned.
The Court further recommends that the parties negotiate within the
current productivity discussions and seek to address the
engineers' claims.
These negotiations to be completed within a period of 4 months.
In the event that agreement on rates of pay for engineers is not
reached in this timescale the Court recommends that an agreed
assessor be appointed to recommend on pay/wages for engineers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
18th December, 1995 ------------
L.W./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.