Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8944 Case Number: LCR12268 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BELL LINES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of thirty one clerical workers in the Dublin office for increases in the wage round as applied in the Waterford unit.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8944 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12268
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BELL LINES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of thirty one clerical workers in the Dublin
office for increases in the wage round as applied in the Waterford
unit.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has an administrative office in Dublin, an
operational unit in Waterford and a number of depots located
throughout the country. The wage rounds for both the Dublin and
Waterford units were due from 1st July, 1988. The Waterford unit
employs both clerical and operational workers and it was agreed
that the pay terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.)
would be applied, by calculating the total cost of the increase
and dividing this by the total number of workers. This resulted
in each worker receiving a flat rate increase of #500 in respect
of the wage round. In the Dublin office which employs only
clerical and administrative workers the Company paid the terms of
the P.N.R. i.e. 3% on the first #120.00 and 2% on the balance.
The Union on behalf of the workers in the Dublin office has
claimed that the #500 increase to the clerical workers in
Waterford equates to increases of between 3.25% and 5.50% compared to
2.25% for the Dublin workers and that the Company is treating the
workers here concerned unfavourably. On 16th September, 1988 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 25th October, 1988
at which no agreement could be reached and in December, 1988 the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 25th
January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The administrative and clerical workers in Dublin have a
four tier grading structure, progression through the grades is
contingent on work content and many of the workers are on the
maximum of the three lower grades. In Waterford a two tier
structure operates with automatic progression from the junior
grades to the senior grades, therefore all the workers have
the potential after fourteen years to reach the maximum salary
point. The workers in Dublin are already at a disadvantage in
terms of this grading structure and to further discriminate
against them under the wage round would exacerbate the
situation. It is a complete negation of the P.N.R. to treat
the workers in Dublin less favourably
2. Management has stated that the increase of #500 applied to
the Waterford workers was arrived at by dividing the total
cost of the P.N.R. by the number of workers. However the
figure of #500 suggests an average salary of approximately
#22,464. As the average salary of the clerical and
administrative workers is approximately #13,500 this suggests
that the rest of the workers in Waterford earn salaries in
excess of #30,000. This appears to lack credibility, even
allowing for a small number of workers who earn large
salaries. The #500 settlement would appear to have resulted
from negotiations rather than from the application of such a
formula.
3. In a small amount of companies, settlements in excess of
the minimum terms of the P.N.R. have been agreed, but in all
cases these have been applied to all groups of workers
equally. Management has stated that it cannot afford to pay
above the terms of the P.N.R. However the Company cannot pay
the majority of the workers #500 and plead inability to pay in
respect of applying this to the rest of workforce. The
workers should be paid a #500 increase, on all points of the
scale, effective from 1st July, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In Waterford there is a large discrepancy between the
clerical pay scales and the very high levels of earnings
of operational workers. The method of applying the P.N.R. in
Waterford resulting in each worker receiving a #500 increase
was done in order to reduce this imbalance. The result was
that the lower paid workers gained significantly at the
expense of the higher paid while the cost to the Company
remained unchanged.
2. In 1982 the top of the Dublin clerical scales was behind
the top of the Waterford scales. Since then the workers in
Dublin have done much better than their counterparts in
Waterford and the top of the Dublin scale is currently #269
ahead of the Waterford scale. Increases in Dublin have
consisted of both fixed monetary sums and percentages, whereas
in Waterford the increases have been in the form of fixed
amounts, generally due to the disparity between the clerical
and outside operational workers.
3. The terms of the P.N.R. were agreed and implemented in
Dublin and Waterford. The Company were fully justified in
entering into an agreement in Waterford on a method of
application which did not involve additional costs and which
facilitated the lower paid. The Company would be prepared to
consider a similar method of applying the cost of the P.N.R.
in Dublin, provided that all workers involved are agreeable
that the cost of the application of the Plan to the Company is
divided by the number of workers and the resulting fixed sum
applied to each worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
23rd February, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.