FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLONMEL HEALTHCARE PLC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disparity in the hourly rate of pay between two groups of supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union submitted a pay claim for parity in the hourly rate of fourteen employees categorised as supervisors. It wants the same hourly rate of pay for these employees as currently applies to one particular supervisor.
Management rejected the Union's claim and stated that the rates of pay for the supervisors is competitive when compared with other similar type companies.
As agreement was not possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 12th March, 2002 at which the conciliation officer put forward proposals to resolve the dispute. However, this was rejected following a ballot of the members. A further conciliation conference was held on the 18th June, 2002, but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st June, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 3rd September, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There should be no differential between the supervisory grades. They all carry out the same duties.
2. It would appear that historically the Company granted pay increases to individuals without any consultation with the Union.
3. The Union does not accept that there are historical reasons for the pay differentials. This has now resulted in division and acrimony.
4. The Company has failed to treat everybody equally and to encourage and reward individuals outside of any agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Any concession of this claim will lead to knock-on claims from other sections of the Company.
2. The rate of pay for supervisors is very competitive and is reflective of the work performed.
3. The current disparity in the rates of pay for supervisors is an historical anomaly. The role fulfilled by some of the supervisors is significantly different to that of twenty years ago.
4. The individual on the highest rate has been a sugar coater, which is a specialist skill for over twenty years. He ran two plants and had the title of plant superintendent. This is the reason that he is on a higher rate of pay.
5. This is a cost increasing claim and is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is that all supervisors should be placed on the appropriate salary i.e. that of the highest paid individual. Having considered the submission of both parties the Court is of the view that the inter-office memo dated the 16th January, 1981 is of major importance in this case. It clearly established a recognised and accepted position whereby a named employee was appointed to a position as "senior supervisor" and consequently his rate of pay was increased. The Court is satisfied it has since evolved into a position whereby that employee has effectively held a redcircling arrangement.
To address this claim the Court recommends that the Industrial Relations Officer's proposals (12th March 2002) should be put back on the table with an increased monetary amount of €3000 and pro-rata for those with less than two years' service.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th September, 2002______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.