Labour Court Database
File Number: CD8978
Case Number: AD8927
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: NISSAN IRELAND LTD - and - A WORKER
Appeal by the Company against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in a claim by a worker for a differential in pay over and above workers he supervises.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8978 APPEAL DECISION NO AD2789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
PARTIES: NISSAN IRELAND LTD
1. Appeal by the Company against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation in a claim by a worker for a differential in pay
over and above workers he supervises.
2. The worker is employed in the Distribution Department of
Nissan Ireland Ltd. He is presently on a salary of #252.35 per
week. He supervises the Docks Operation while the vehicles are
unloaded in Dublin Docks. The people he supervises are paid a
weekly rate of #295. The Union representing the worker claims
that its member should be paid a weekly rate over and above that
of the people he supervises. The Company are satisfied that their
worker is adequately rewarded. The fact that he is paid less than
the people he supervises is due to an inherited situation. The
worker in question is claiming differential in pay over
ex-assembly workers who were retained by the Company with no loss
of earnings when assembly ceased. This claim was heard by a
Rights Commissioner on 21st November, 1988. His findings and
"Having investigated the matter and having given full
and careful consideration to the points made by both
parties I have come to the following conclusions:-
1. I note the circumstances that gave rise to the
exceptional rate of pay for the employees
supervised by the worker.
2. I also note that he performs his duties in a
3. I must also take account of the clear assurances by
the Union that any concession to the worker's claim
will not give rise to any repercussive claims by
other employees within the membership of MSF in the
4. I also note that the company does not anticipate
any consequential claims from other employees
should the claim be conceded.
In the light of the above I recommend that the worker's
claim be conceded. I further recommend the concession
of this claim be approached in the following fashion:
(a) effective from the 1st of November 1988 the
claimant's salary to be increased by 50% of the
difference between his salary and that of the
person he supervises
(b) effective from the 1st November 1989 the claimant's
salary be brought into equilibrium with the
salaries of those he supervises and a differential
of #20 per week be added to his salary.
(c) This differential to be a permanent feature unless
negotiated otherwise by his union and the company."
Note: The worker was named in this Recommendation.
3. On 25th January, 1989 the company appealed this recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 2nd March,
3. 1. The worker concerned joined the company as a dispatch
clerk in its Distribution Department in 1981. His job was
redefined as a stock control clerk in 1982. In recent years
the worker has frequently deputised for his Manager as there
is no assistant manager in his department.
2. The worker as part of his duties supervises the Docks
Operation while vehicles are unloaded in Dublin Docks. In
doing this he must take a group of manual workers to the docks
car compound for the unloading and then he prepares the
vehicles for dispatch.
3. At the end of every month the worker is required to do a
stock control which involves arranging for both manual and
clerical staff to be present.
4. The manual employees who are supervised by this worker
from time to time are former assembly workers who are on a
weekly wage of #295. The worker covered by this claim has a
weekly wage of #252.
5. 5. The Union submit that paying their member considerably
less than workers he supervises is unfair and contrary to
generally accepted practice. They now seek a job description
which fully covers all duties of the worker concerned and an
appropriate pay differential in recognition of the
responsibility of his job.
6. 1. The employee concerned works in the Distribution
Department of the Company. He is on an incremental scale
(details supplied) and is presently on point 13. The scale
provides for an annual increment of 3.5% with no cut off
point. The manual workers who are supervised by this employee
during the Docks operation are paid a weekly rate of #295
inclusive of the 28th Wage Round. The manual workers are
ex-car assembly workers whose production bonus was
incorporated into their weekly pay when assembly work ceased.
These employees were given alternative work in the
Distribution area. This work was previously carried out by
lower paid workers. The manual workers are not on an
incremental scale. Without concession of his claim the
claimant will be on a higher rate than the manual workers in
about five years. He will have an increasing differential
2. The rate of pay of the company's manual workers is much
higher than the industry standard for the job of
driver/general operative. The SIMI nationally negotiated
equivalent rate for driver/general operative is #152.44
inclusive of the 28th Round.
3. The manual workers are much older than the claimant and
most of them have very long service.
4. The company would suggest that if the Court recommends
any increase related to the rates of pay of the former
assembly workers there should be a choice of either the
recommended increase or remaining on the incremental scale but
not both as the workers on whom this claim is based are not on
an incremental scale.
The Court considers that as the claimant is on an incremental
salary scale completely unrelated to the pay of the members of the
ATGWU whose pay is based on historical reasons, there is no basis
for awarding a differential to the claimant particularly as his
salary will inevitably outstrip the pay of the comparators. The
Court therefore decides that the Company's appeal be upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
21st March, 1989 -------------