FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS AMICUS AEEU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Assimilation to new scale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the application of an agreement on the pay of craftworkers. The agreement followed the issuing of LCR16477 which dealt with reducing the pay scale from 11 points to 8 points in respect of new recruits. The area now in dispute concerns the assimilation of existing staff onto the new scale. The Unions claim that the Company agreed that existing staff would be assimilated on the basis of years of service. This was balloted on and accepted by the majority of craftworkers. However, in its application, the Company placed all staff with 1 to 4 years' service on the first point of the new scale. Workers with 7 years' service for example would be placed on the 4th point of the new scale. The Union believes that workers with 1 to 7 years service should be placed on the corresponding points of the scale, and workers with 8 to 11 years' service would be on the top point.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of September, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of November, 2002.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company originally agreed that assimilation would be on the basis of service but has since reneged on that agreement.
2. The Company's application of the agreement means that staff with 6 or 7 years' service will still be required to work the 11 point scale, while new staff will work an 8 point scale.
3. The issue affects only a minority of craftworkers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Staff who were on the max. minus 1 point of the old scale were placed at the max. minus 1 point of the new scale. This process was repeated throughout the new 8 point scale. This methodology was correct in that it maintained the correct balance to the incremental grade structure.
2. If the Unions' position were accepted, an additional cost of €62,000 would be incurred. Staff have already received significant benefits under the terms of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties.
The disputed wording of the agreement is capable of being interpreted in the manner contended for by the Union Group. In the Court's view, if another construction was intended, the Company had a responsibility to make that clear in the course of negotiations and in drafting the final document.
Moreover, it is accepted by the Company that the agreement was intended to be of general benefit to craft workers currently employed. The method of implementation proposed by the Company would only be of benefit to a minority of employees (those with between one and three years' service). If that method is applied, the agreement will not be of general benefit to the group in question.
In all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the interpretation placed on the agreement by the Unions is more viable. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Unions' claim be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th December, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.