LCR15353

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/404 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15353 (CC95/1607) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ADM RINGASKIDDY - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member:

SUBJECT:
1. Remuneration.





BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on behalf of a worker for pay parity with the grade of shift superintendent. The Union's claim is on foot of the Company's restructuring of the craft maintenance department and in particular the electrical instrumentation area.

In October, 1995, one of the electrical instrument foremen transferred to production and the worker concerned took over his duties. The Union argues that the superintendent's rate of pay is appropriate for the job.

The Company's position is that proposals affecting the foremen were discussed and agreed on the basis that the numbers would reduce in that area. Their spokesman accepted the changes and requested that the pay terms of the agreement be implemented. The Company implemented the pay terms in full and they were accepted by the foremen including the worker concerned.

The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 20th March, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 11th July, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on 16th October, 1996.






UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker has taken on all the responsibilities associated with the dual role of the electrical/instrumentation supervisor and has involved himself totally in all aspects of the job. His responsibility is plant-wide and involves the supervision of external contractors.

2. The appropriate rate for the job is that of the grade of superintendent. The position of the worker concerned is unique in that his functions cover different categories of workers. The flexibility has resulted in substantial savings to the Company. In the circumstances the Union is seeking that this flexibility be recognised with an improved remuneration package.




COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company proposed a reduction in the number of engineering foremen from four to two. In return for agreement on the proposals, the Company agreed to accede fully to an earlier claim by the foremen for pay parity with the senior production foreman. The pay terms of the PCW were also applied and in addition the foremen received a further 2% increase in basic pay, a once-off lump sum of 2% of basic annual pay and an increase in the VHI Company subsidy in return for co-operation with the changes. The foremen accepted the proposals.

2. In October, 1995 one of the electrical/instrument foremen transferred to production and in accordance with the agreement the worker concerned took over his duties. Sometime later he claimed that he had not accepted the agreement and subsequently made a claim for pay parity with the shift superintendent.

3. The Company has no record of the worker rejecting the agreement.

4. The worker's claim for parity with the shift superintendent is not justified. The shift superintendent is a key manager in the ADM operation - he reports to the number two manager on site, the manufacturing manager. To grant parity with the superintendent would have serious implications for the Company's agreed pay structures.







RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions.

The Court does not find grounds have been adduced to warrant concession of the Union's claim.

Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Tom McGrath
11th November, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.