INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
MARINE PORT & GENERAL WORKER'S UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Adjustment of salary.
2. The Company imports and distributes sanitary ware and brassware and supplies these products to the construction industry.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a worker for an adjustment in salary.
The worker concerned is employed as a chargehand in the brassware department. He works a 39 hour week.
In 1991, following an arrangement with the Managing Director, the worker was uplifted to staff status. He received an increase in pay and was included in the staff sick pay scheme. His requirement to work overtime was limited. Up to 1994, he received a 3% differential above other grades. This was increased to 10% following a Rights Commissioner's investigation.
The Union now claims that the differential should be increased to 20%.
The Company rejects the claim.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 29th of June, 1999. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of September, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of November, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The worker has co-operated with Management in every way. He has carried out tasks not included in his job description.
2. His salary is out of line when compared with salaries in similar companies.
3. The worker concerned receives less gross pay annually than his colleagues in the warehouse.
4. To increase the differential to 20% is justified as the Company profits have improved since 1993.
4. 1. There has been no material change in the nature of work or responsibilities carried out by the worker concerned. He is adequately paid for the work he does.
2. He enjoys a better sick pay scheme than his colleagues and is required to work very little overtime unlike the General Operatives.
3. This is a cost increasing claim. There has been no change in the Company's financial circumstances since 1993.
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties and recommends as follows:
- The claimant's salary should be subject to an annual review on the same basis as other management grades and having regard to the prevailing financial circumstances of the Company. The first such review should take place as soon as possible following acceptance of this recommendation.
- The annual bonus currently paid to the claimant should be increased by £250.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th December, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.