FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH ISPAT LIMITED - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning upgrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1994, following negotiations between the parties and the acceptance of LCR14506 the Company's survival plan was implemented. The Union agreed to a substantial reduction in the number of workers and changes in terms and conditions of employment. As a result of these changes, the Union claimed the upgrading of three workers' posts on the grounds of increased responsibility of their duties, increased flexibility and new work practices. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 28th February 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd May 1996. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 19th June, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All staff have taken on additional work with the implementation of the survival plan. The Company/Union agreement, however, does not provide for workers taking on duties of a higher grade without being paid the appropriate rate for the job.
2. In relation to other groups of staff, notably where foremen have left, staff who took over their work received the appropriate higher rate.
3. The Union seeks the regrading of:
(1) the post of Ms. B in the purchasing department who carries out certain work formerly undertaken by management staff.
(2) the post of Ms. C who works in the Finance Division and carries out duties previously the responsibility of a junior executive grade made redundant.
(3) Ms. M employed as a telephonist/receptionist who has taken on the duties previously carried out by two confidential secretaries plus some clerical duties in the finance division. She was given a commitment by her departmental manager that her salary would be reviewed. She should be upgraded to the clerical scale.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The survival plan can only succeed if workers are willing to make sacrifices. The reduction in numbers clearly implied that the reduced workforce at all levels were absorbing increased duties and responsibilities.
2. The specific posts and categories remaining after implementation of the plan were clearly listed and accepted as part of the Contract of Employment.
3. In this specific case Management responded to a Union request to avoid involuntary redundancies by allowing the 16 applicants to go and transferring other workers to remaining posts.
4. Concession of the Union's claim would be in breach of the pay freeze which is a critical element of the plan.
5. The acceptance of LCR14506 led to the survival of the Company through Government funding and ultimately its purchase by an international Steel Company. Despite the clarity of both the plan and its acceptance the Company is facing a series of claims which run contrary to the agreed terms of the plan.
6. Despite savings in '94 the 20% fall in selling prices have restored monthly losses to the levels which pertained in 1994 prompting the Company to carry out a further indepth review of its cost base. It is essential that the pay freeze recommended in LCR14506 is accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the Court would be of the view that where an individual takes on a post of higher value than occupied, the individual should be paid the higher rate, this is not the situation in these cases.
It would appear that the claimants took on additional duties as part of the restructuring as did many others in the Company.
The parties disagree on the extent or value of work taken on in these cases.
Taking into account all aspects of this case, the Court recommends that at the end of the three year pay freeze the Company reassess these posts and their grading.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
4th July, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.