Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91609 Case Number: LCR13539 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MUNEKATA PLASTRONIX LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Retrospection on pay award.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties expressed
in the oral and written submissions takes the view there was an
expectation of the staff that a review would take place and this
would include a review of pay.
The Court accepts that the review need not necessarily have
yielded an increase in pay.
However, in all the circumstances the Court considers there was an
obligation to carry out a review.
The Court considers that in full and final settlement of the
claims the Company should pay to those employees concerned a lump
sum equivalent to 5% of the current basic rate. The payment to be
in respect of the period from six months after date of appointment
to the date of the implementation of the review. The Court is
satisfied that those members of staff who opted for voluntary
redundancy received their severance pay on the basis of the actual
rate of pay applicable on the date of their redundancy and that
should not be changed by this recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91609 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13539
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MUNEKATA PLASTRONIX LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Retrospection on pay award.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is a subsidiary of Munekata of Japan employs
331 people in the manufacture of plastic components for the
computer and electronics industry. Currently 93 people are
employed in the administration section of the Company and the
remainder of the employees are involved in production. In
December, 1989 to March, 1990 nine production workers moved into
clerical/administration positions. The Union claims that the jobs
were subject to review at the end of specified periods. Implicit
in this review was a commitment by the Company that pay rates
would be reviewed. At the end of the review period the workers
were confirmed in their positions but no review of their salaries
took place. In December, 1990 to March, 1991 the Union were
involved in negotiations with the Company in respect of a general
review of conditions of employment. In conjunction with these
discussions various outstanding claims were added to the agenda,
including a claim for the nine workers here concerned. Agreement
was reached on a wide range of issues including rates of pay and a
voluntary redundancy package. Five of the nine workers concerned
opted for voluntary redundancy. Pay rates for the other four were
agreed and implemented with effect from June, 1991. The Union
claims that the workers expections were for a pay increase at the
end of the review period in April/May, 1990 and accordingly sought
retrospection of the pay award. Local level discussion failed to
resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission on 25th May, 1991. A conciliation conference
was held on 18th July, 1991 and as no agreement could be reached
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court hearing took place on 5th September,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers moved into specific jobs in the administration
area. These jobs arose due to changes in the Company's
requirements and were advertised internally. The workers
applied for the jobs, were interviewed in respect of the jobs
and met the standards required by the Company. The rates of
pay they received bore no relation to the work they performed
or to the rates of pay enjoyed by non-union clerical staff
performing the same work.
2. Workers who opted for voluntary redundancy should be paid
the revised rates of pay in respect of their redundancy
payments. The workers left the Company in the period July to
September, 1991. It was an essential part of the
rationalisation deal that staff numbers be reduced.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In March, 1990 due to declining competitiveness and the
loss of business the Company was forced to reduce its two
shift operation to a one shift operation.
2. The employees concerned moved to new administration jobs
in a move by the Company to maintain jobs despite a reduction
in its business. These employees rates of pay were
maintained. The Company feels it was a equitable rate of pay
for the job.
3. The Company was unable to pay any special increases to its
employees, except for its commitments to adhere to the
conditions of the P.N.R. and the P.E.S.P. This is because of
the high level of losses sustained in the past two years.
4. This claim is not provided for under the terms of the
P.N.R. and the P.E.S.P as it is a cost increasing claim.
5. The Company are concerned about the possible knock-on
effects of the claim.
6. The workers who opted for voluntary redundancy were in no
doubt as to the terms of the redundancy package i.e. 4½ weeks
pay per year of service based on their salary at that time.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties expressed
in the oral and written submissions takes the view there was an
expectation of the staff that a review would take place and this
would include a review of pay.
The Court accepts that the review need not necessarily have
yielded an increase in pay.
However, in all the circumstances the Court considers there was an
obligation to carry out a review.
The Court considers that in full and final settlement of the
claims the Company should pay to those employees concerned a lump
sum equivalent to 5% of the current basic rate. The payment to be
in respect of the period from six months after date of appointment
to the date of the implementation of the review. The Court is
satisfied that those members of staff who opted for voluntary
redundancy received their severance pay on the basis of the actual
rate of pay applicable on the date of their redundancy and that
should not be changed by this recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
13th February, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.