Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87592
Case Number: LCR11432
Section / Act: S67
Parties: ODLUMS LTD - and - ACTS
|
Subject:
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately thirty clerical staff concerning the date of application of the 25th and 26th Round increases.
Recommendation:
5. From the evidence submitted, the Court is satisfied that the
claimants have been paid their due entitlements from the due
commencement dates. The Court does not, therefore, recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87592 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11432
CC87728 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11432
PARTIES: ODLUMS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL, TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY STAFFS
Subject:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately thirty clerical
staff concerning the date of application of the 25th and 26th
Round increases.
Background:
2. The normal practice for settling wage round increases for
clerical staff in the Company is that the increases agreed in
respect of operatives at national level are offered to and
accepted by the clerical staff. The Union is in dispute with the
Company because the clerical staff are paid monthly while others
covered by the wage agreement are paid weekly. The agreement is
not implemented until the first pay day following the conclusion
of the agreement. The Union believes that all groups covered by
the agreement should have a common implementation date. The
Company rejected the claim on the basis that the particular
procedure has been operating for a number of years and that
implementing the increase on the first pay day after the due date
is standard practice in the industry. On 29th April, 1987, the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. As a settlement was not achieved at a conciliation
conference held on 28th May, 1987, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 28th July, 1987, for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 17th September,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The clerical staff receive their increase one or two
weeks later than the process workers. In the Union's
opinion this is not in keeping with the spirit of the
agreement. The offer of the same increase as the
process workers included the operative date of the
increase.
(b) The Company has argued that at all times the clerical
staffs' increases were one to two weeks behind the
process workers and that nothing had changed.
However, the Union submits that whatever the system
was before the staff joined the Union it no longer
applied once a formal negotiating unit was
established.
(c) It is not unreasonable for the clerical workers to
want to receive their increase at the same time as the
Company's other workers rather than when workers in
other companies receive it.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) In 1983, the Union sought an agreement from the
Company whereby clerical staff would have the option
of being paid weekly. Agreement was reached subject
to specific conditions, including no additional cost
to the Company and clericals being paid weekly would
not benefit over those being paid monthly. Now the
Union claims that the implementation date of wage
increases for weekly and monthly clerical staff should
be a week earlier in line with general operatives.
(ii) In accordance with an agreement made in 1978, monthly
employees have not enjoyed the preferential benefits
conferred on employees who worked a back week as a
result of a built in anomaly in the agreement which
applied across the industry. To now apply this
arrangement to the "new" weekly paid clerical
employees would be in breach of the 1983 agreement.
(iii) Concession of this claim would also create a precedent
whereby production employees in the industry who were
party to the 1978 agreement and who do not work a back
week would then claim payment a week earlier.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. From the evidence submitted, the Court is satisfied that the
claimants have been paid their due entitlements from the due
commencement dates. The Court does not, therefore, recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th September, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman