FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROADBINDERS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 148/95 concerning a claim for an increase in wages.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in a temporary capacity as a general operative/yardman in 1986. He was made permanent in September, 1987. In March, 1992 the Company's production operative accepted voluntary redundancy terms and left the Company. The worker was offered and subsequently accepted that position. The Union claims that the worker received assurances from management that his remuneration would be reviewed following a trial period.
In July, 1994 the Union submitted a claim on behalf of the worker. The Union argues that the worker is a time-served craftsman and that a worker employed by a sister Company (Colfix Ltd.) performing similar duties to the worker concerned is paid a substantially higher rate of pay. Local level discussions took place at which management's offer of £10.00 per week was rejected by the worker.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 14th August, 1994 the Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the claim for parity with Colfix fails. I further recommend that the Claimant accepts the offer with conditions attaching thereto madeby the Company effective from the date of offer and that upon completion of a properly agreed job specification at local level that he receives a further increase in thesame amount effective from the date of the hearing of this case".
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by both parties to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 17th April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In April, 1992 the worker, at the request of management, took on additional responsibilities. He received verbal assurances from management that his remuneration would be reviewed following a trial period.
2. In January, 1994 the worker was assigned control of production, general yard/plant maintenance and general yard duties. It was requested that the worker updated management on a weekly basis in relation to the general running of the plant.
3. The Union is seeking parity with a worker employed by a sister Company with similar responsiabilities to the worker concerned. Parity existed since 1975, until the late 1980's when local agreements became the norm. The worker's rate of £225.00 inclusive of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.) is considerably out of line with the Colfix rate of £268.00 per week exclusive of the P.C.W.
4. The rationalisation which led to the worker's increased responsibilities involved the redundancy of the production operative whose rate of pay would currently start at £243.22 per week. The production operative did not have any maintenance or reporting responsibilities.
5. Considerable savings have accrued to the Company, as a result ot the flexibility given by the worker. In the circumstances payment of the Colfix rate is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker is employed as a process/production operative. The Rights Commissioner has accepted that the job description agreed on adoption of the process operative role remains that of a general operative function which does not require any technical expertise or specific qualification.
2. The worker is neither qualified to nor required to undertake the majority of plant/technical maintenance work.
3. The Rights Commissioner accepts that the relevant comparator for pay purposes remains the previous job incumbent. It is accepted that not all the previous process operator's functions have been subsumed into the present operator's function. The responsibility for testing/sampling, performed by the previous process operator, is now proper to the position of production manager.
4. The worker concerned is paid at the top of the operative's pay scale. The next position on the Company's pay scale is that of the production manager. Concession of this claim could lead to further cost increasing claims from the Company's hourly paid workers.
5. The Company is satisfied that the worker is required to operate as a general operative. The Union's assertion that the worker assumes overall responsibility for quality assurance/testing, work scheduling and stock control is incorrect. The Company has previously proposed substantial offers to the worker but cannot accept that a pay increase of 10% is justified.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions and arguments put forward by the parties and taking into account the Report of the Rights Commisioner the Court has concluded that the Company's offer, made in 1994 was a fair response to the Union's claim and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly upholds the Company's appeal and rejects the appeal by the Union.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
20th May, 1996______________________
F.B./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.