Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95518 Case Number: AD9575 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MURRAYS EUROPCAR (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - AUTOMOBILE, GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES' |
Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC153/95.
Recommendation:
Having carefully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, the Court upholds
the recommendation of the Right's Commissioner and rejects the
appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
UNION Worker: Ms. Ni. Mhurchu Body:
CD95518 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7595
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
MURRAYS EUROPCAR
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
AUTOMOBILE, GENERAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL OPERATIVES' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
No. BC153/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerns one worker,
a mechanic, whom the Union claimed was being underpaid by
approximately £28 per week, when compared with mechanics
working with a sister-company. The Company responded that
the sister-company is a separate retail, and repair/
maintenance outlet, whereas Murrays is a car-rental business,
with a facility for minor repairs/maintenance. It was the
view of the Rights Commissioner that the worker's wages were,
to some extent, unreasonably depressed, and recommended that
they be increased by £15 per week. The Company appealed the
Recommendation, on the 27th of September, 1995, in accordance
with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on the 13th of October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While accepting the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation, the Union believes that he actually
erred on the side of caution, awarding an increase of
£15 instead of an increase of £28, i.e., parity with
Dublin rates generally.
2. The worker has been paid below the going rate in this
instance because he is in a one man job and has little
industrial muscle.
3. The sister-company is a valid comparator as both
Companies are connected and there has been inter-
changing of staff (details supplied).
4. The appeal by the Company is mean and petty as the
worker was awarded an increase of only £15 per week and
he is the only worker affected by the claim.
5. The Society of the Irish Motor Industry (S.I.M.I.) rates
are minimum rates, which the Company only reached by
increasing its rates by £5, a year ago.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For the past number of years, the Company has applied
the S.I.M.I. national agreement, to which all trade
unions in the industry are party. The agreement
specifically refers to acceptance of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.). Clause 6 of the
P.C.W. states that no cost-increasing claims will be
made or processed. This, accordingly, prohibits the
Union's claim.
2. The S.I.M.I. rates are nationally agreed and represent
the wages for the industry as a whole.
3. The Company and sister-company have different rates as
they operate in separate areas of the industry.
Although part of the same group, they operate
independently. The sister-company has a
productivity/attendance bonus scheme in operation which
accounts for the difference in salaries between the two
companies.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, the Court upholds
the recommendation of the Right's Commissioner and rejects the
appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th November, 1995 Tom McGrath
M.K./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.