FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CULCITA LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. The rate of pay of a supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of seat cushions and parasols for garden furniture, employing in excess of 100 workers in its premises in New Ross, Co. Wexford. The dispute concerns one worker who was employed in April, 1991, as a working supervisor (chargehand) in the milling/filling section, at a negotiated rate of £200 per week. This rate was £50 in excess of the rate paid to other supervisors. Subsequent to her appointment the supervisor sought an increase of £50 per week, which was conceded by the Company on the basis that she was effective in her position. In January, 1994, the supervisor requested a pay increase under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (an increase which had already been conceded to her colleagues). Her request was declined. At the beginning of the 1995 season, following a meeting of the supervisor with senior management, she was promised a bonus of £750, subject to her performance being satisfactory. She actually received a bonus of £150 at the end of the season. The Company claims that she received only £150 as her performance had been less than satisfactory and that the payment was made as a goodwill gesture. In November, 1995, at a meeting with management concerning planning for 1996, the supervisor stated her intention to pursue a claim for an increase of £50 per week and indicated that she had enlisted the help of SIPTU. Agreement was not reached on the matter, the Company claiming that the worker was unsatisfactory and the Union responding that, after 4 years of incident free service it seemed that now, according to the Company, "she could do nothing right". The matter of her rate of pay was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th April, 1996, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, for investigation and recommendation. The Court carried out its investigation, in Wexford, on the 25th of June, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers who are supervised by the claimant have received the 3rd phase of the PESP and the PCW. Consequently her differential over those she supervises has been eroded by approximately 12% over the past 4.5 years. Over the same period, inflation has reduced the real value of her wages by over 9%.
2. The claimant has no difficulty accepting the Company's wish to deal directly with her, rather than meeting the Union. However, she cannot accept a flat refusal by the Company to deal with the issue at any level or forum.
3. If the Company does not wish to apply national wage round increases to her, she is prepared to accept alternative arrangements, provided that something no less favourable is substituted.
4. The worker refutes any suggestion that she was an unsatisfactory employee.
Although she acknowledges that she has experienced minor difficulties regarding the over-time arrangements, she flatly denies that she has been guilty of poor time-keeping. She has reached targets which were set for her by management, except on occasions when her section was forced to wait for cushions to fill.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant commenced with the Company on a higher basic rate of pay than other supervisors. This was despite the fact that other supervisors had more onerous duties and one was a Master Tailor. She was allowed to participate in the bonus scheme and received overtime, neither of which applied to other supervisors. After a very short period of time, her weekly pay was increased by a further £50 upon her request. These favourable conditions of employment were on the expectation that she would perform satisfactorily. Her rate of pay and conditions of employment are still in excess of those of other supervisors.
2. Her rate of pay is well in excess of textile and clothing industry norms. Although she is termed a working supervisor, she is in fact a chargehand. The minimum average rate for Production Chargehand in the textile and clothing industry is £188.29. The maximum average is £227.49, with an actual average of £196.29.
3. It has been the long-standing arrangement at the Company that supervisors receive pay-increases on an informal basis and these increases are determined by performance. It is understood that such increases are in lieu of national agreements.
4. The claimant has proved to be an unsatisfactory employee. Despite the best efforts of the Company, she has failed to perform to required standards, whilst her time-keeping and attendance have been very poor. Her shortcomings have been repeatedly brought to her attention, but to no avail. The Company has stated clearly that in the current circumstances, no pay increase is merited.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully examined the evidence presented by the parties to this dispute. It was clear at the hearing that there was contradictory recollection as to past events. Faced with this situation, the Court is of the view that the recommendation set out below is the fairest way of resolving the dispute:-
(a) The Company pay the claimant an increase of £25 per week from the
1st of January, 1996;
(b) Between now and the end of 1996, the parties meet and agree a pay structure and method of dealing with future claims for increases.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
16th July, 1996______________________
M.K./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.