FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : SUPERQUINN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. New salary structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed by the Company as a 'Bacon and Seafood No. 2,' a position which attracts a post of responsibility payment. In March, 1999, the Company having reached agreement with the Union, implemented a new wage structure. Three different contracts were applicable A, B and C, with various conditions attached. Each worker would receive an additional £10, £15 or £20 on top of their old basic rate of pay depending on which contract they chose. The Union claims that the worker's rate under the new agreement was not properly calculated.
The Union states that it understood that the new rate would be calculated as follows based on a 39 hour week i.e. excluding overtime and late nights.
Amount | Explanation |
£239.03 | Existing wage prior to implementation of agreement |
£10.00 | Payment due for acceptance of agreement |
£50.00 | Bonus payable under old wage structure |
£299.03 | Total payment due for 39 hour week |
To obtain the hourly rate under the new agreement, the Union claims that the weekly rate of £299.03 shown above should be divided by 39 giving an hourly rate of £7.67.
To get the hourly rate under the new agreement, the Company claims that the weekly rate of £381.77 incorporating 5 hours overtime at T+½, 3 hours at double time and average bonus should be divided by 52.5 giving a hourly rate of £7.27.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 5th of April, 2000. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 11th of April, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 4th of July, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the Company's calculation the worker's new basic rate of pay is set at £283.60. This leaves him at a loss of £15.53 per week. Since the agreement was implemented in March, 1999, the Company's assertion that the worker benefited in accordance with the agreement when his overall earnings are taken into account is incorrect. The agreement set about establishing a new basic rate of pay and did not involve the inclusion of overtime to assess whether the agreement brought about the relevant increases or not.
2. The Company's position is illogical as not all posts of responsibility automatically receive the same level of overtime. The agreement states that "while the late night and five hours overtime does not automatically apply to the above post of responsibility and bacon hand rates where they are currently being worked by colleagues, this would be maintained at the new rates". It therefore, would be impossible to impose a new standard basic rate of pay. To propose such a method of calculation would penalise those who did work overtime against those who did not. If the claimant did not work any overtime he would have been significantly better off in respect of his new basic rate of pay.
3. The new basic rate of pay agreed for a post of responsibility was for a 39 hour contract unlike the new basic rate for chargehands which clearly states 47 hours. This distinction was made due to the fact that all chargehands worked 47 hours per week unlike their colleagues in posts of responsibility who worked 39 hours or more. This Union could not negotiate a new basic rate of pay for posts of responsibility if as the Company suggests the method of calculating whether a member benefited accordingly or not would be based on his or her level of overtime. The Union was not in a position to know each individuals gross earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement provided for the absorption of the bonus into the new rates of pay.
2. The method used to establish the new rate was to take the gross earnings prior to the agreement to which was added the average bonus of that grade for the previous twelve months i.e. 47 hours was worked and the new gross rate was £381.76 as follows:
39 basic, 5 hours overtime, 3 hours double time
This is the equivalent of 39 + 7.5 + 6 = 52.5 hours paid
To get the new basic rate of pay £381.77 is used and divided by 52.5= £7.27
3. Concession of this claim could give rise to a significant number of follow on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute, which has been referred to the Court, has highlighted the difference of interpretation which exists from the Company/Unions Agreement of 1999. This Agreement was accepted on behalf of over 400 workers. One Union has referred a claim to the Labour Court on behalf of a worker, as confusion has arisen over the application of the Agreement in his case. The Court accepts that the wording of the Agreement has given rise to this ambiguity.
It was agreed by the parties that one of the aims of the 1999 Agreement was to achieve uniform rates for Chargehands and for those with Posts of Responsibility. This Agreement provided for the abolition of the bonus scheme in return for a new higher standard rate, which is used for the purposes of calculating overtime and pension. However, in attempting to do this, confusion has arisen as to the calculation of the basic rate for this worker. The Court recommends that the ambiguity in his case needs to be further discussed between the parties. If the issue is not resolved at local level, then it may be referred back to the Court for recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th July, 2000.______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.