FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SCHINDLER IRELAND - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Ir1285/00/Jh
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a multi-national company dealing in the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators. The dispute concerns 3 engineers who had enjoyed a pay differential over other engineers in the Company - 2 of the workers concerned had a 60 pence per hour differential for 20 years, and the third worker had a 50 pence per hour differential for 6 years. In 2000, the Company decided to place the majority of its engineers on the same rate of pay as they were all doing the same work, and increased the rate by 67 pence per hour. (The Union claims that the increase was related to new work practices but the Company denies this.) This resulted in the 2 workers with the 60 pence differential receiving a 7 pence per hour increase, and the worker with the 50 pence differential receiving a 17 pence per hour increase. The Union believes that the 3 workers should have received the 67 pence per hour increase and maintained the differentials.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner. In her conclusion she decided that there was no basis for maintaining the differential, and her recommendation issued as follows:
"On the basis of the submissions made and for the reasons set out in the conclusion above, I recommend that those in receipt of the differentialfor twenty years receive a lump sum equivalent to two years of the
differential,and the third claimant receive one year's payment. Thesepayments to buy out the differential are in full and final settlement of any claim by the claimants arising from the loss of the differential."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 14th of September, 2000, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of January, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pay increase was as a result of a change in work practises introduced by the Company, including second man on-call and the completion of service sheets. The Union was not informed of these changes and was given no chance to represent the workers.
2. Whilst the 3 workers did receive an increase, it was minimal compared to the other engineers.
3. The 3 workers had enjoyed their differentials for a long time - 20 years and 6 years respectively. The Rights Commissioner recognised this and, in her recommendation, stated ..."that the Company should give some recognition to the loss of the differential".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company increased the remuneration of the majority of the Union members, without request, as a recognition of skills and experience. There was no change in work practises, as claimed by the Union.
2. All of these workers, including the 3 concerned, will be paid more than they would have with their old differential rate. The Company could have left the 3 workers on their old differential rate and they would have had no case. This fact was not disputed by the Union. There are still engineers on the old rate with no differential.
3. The cost of the 'buy-out' would be £6,800, which would be in addition to the increases already paid.
DECISION:
The Court has taken into account the written and oral presentations made in this appeal. The Court recommends that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld. Therefore, the appeal fails.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th January, 2001______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.