FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COCA COLA ATLANTIC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Restoration of differential
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of 4 Warehouse Supervisors who are seeking restoration of the differential between their grade and the grade of Warehouse Chargehands.
In October, 1987, the Company introduced the HAY System of job evaluation. In 1990, the Production Supervisors applied to have their jobs evaluated, and as a result their jobs were upgraded from Grade 5 to Grade 6. This was the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR13602 in March, 1992.
In 1992, the Warehouse Chargehand and Operatives pursued a claim for loss of differential between themselves and the Production Supervisors. Following an agreement in May, 1992, it was decided that the Chargehands and Operatives would stay on their existing grades i.e., 3A and 3, but their grades were to be adjusted by 8.5% upwards. As a result of this, the differential between the Warehouse Chargehands and Warehouse Supervisors was reduced by 8.5%. The Supervisors submitted a request to have their jobs re-evaluated in 1992, but were unsuccessful and remained on Grade 5. .
In May 1992, a Company/Union agreement was reached in regards to job grading. The agreement included suspending the HAY System - a new system, the Honeyball Paired Comparison is under consideration to replace it. The agreement also covered manning levels, training and development, continuous operations, positive actions of agreement, measurement systems for corrective action and improvement in maintenance responsibility. The agreement also called for acceptance of LCR 13602.
The dispute has been subject to a number of meetings at local level and 2 conciliation conferences on 15th August, 1995 and 22nd November, 1995. As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 30th January, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th May, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The erosion of the differential between the Supervisors and the Chargehands was not the result of a job evaluation but the result of the agreement in May, 1992, which was negotiated through collective bargaining. At the conciliation conference on 22nd November, 1995, the Union stated that it would be agreeable to both sets of jobs (Supervisor and Chargehands) being assessed on level terms by a grading committee. However, the Company has made no response since the offer.
2. There was no change in the job description on the Chargehands which would justify the erosion of the differential between them and the supervisors. The workers concerned have been trying since 1992 to have the dispute settled.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Part of the agreement in May, 1992, stated as follows:-
"that there will be no consequential claims by either SIPTU or
NEETU on behalf of any of its members."
The agreement was accepted in full by SIPTU.
2. The Company outlined at both conciliation conferences its intention to reintroduce a new job evaluation system. The claim by the Warehouse Supervisors will be considered then. In the interim, the Company feels that the previous job evaluation of the Supervisors accurately reflects the job value of their work. Changing the grading system now would result in claims from other grades who have failed to achieve regrading in the past.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, finds that in the light of the present grading structure, industrial relations problems will only be avoided if pay differentials reflect the job content/value.
Accordingly, the Court would exhort the parties to put in place an acceptable job evaluation system as quickly as possible.
The Court considers that, in so far as the employees in this case are concerned, the parties, in all the circumstances, should seek to address their aspirations.
To this end, the Court recommends that the parties discuss the work content of the jobs concerned, and develop a job description which will take account of all of the elements of the job, including any changes or flexibilities which may be required. Arrangements should be made to have the job so described evaluated as a matter of urgency.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
27th June, 1996______________________
C.O'N/D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.