Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87725 Case Number: AD8794 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MILLEX LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST69/87 concerning payment of an allowance to an operative for involvement in the training procedure and the extra responsibility that the operation carries.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the system of transferring experience
and information to trainee operatives does not warrant additional
payment to the trained operatives involved in the system.
While endorsing the Rights Commissioner's comment regarding the
element of responsibility involved the Court does not consider
further payment to be warranted.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87725 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9487
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MILLEX LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation ST69/87 concerning payment of an allowance to an
operative for involvement in the training procedure and the extra
responsibility that the operation carries.
BACKGROUND:
2. This appeal concerns the responsibilities of grade 5 and 6
operatives in relation to trainees with whom they are sharing a
machine in a procedure described locally as "sitting with nellie."
In February, 1987 when a trainee was placed on the machine with a
grade 5 operative the operative refused to work. The Union later
claimed that when workers were involved in the training operation
they should get extra remuneration for the period in question as
the operation carried extra responsibilities for the workers. The
Company rejected the claim and claimed that no extra
responsibility attached to the grade 5 and 6 operatives for the
training of individual trainees. No agreement was reached through
local negotiations and the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner. On 19th June, 1987 the Rights Commissioner, having
investigated the matter, issued his recommendation as follows:
"It seems to me there is some confusion surrounding this
claim. On the one hand the company by letter to the Union
dated 13/4/87 states that no responsibility exists with the
sitter for the work or performance of Nellie. I cannot
reconcile such a statement with received experience in
industry. In my view everyone is responsible for their
work. I cannot perceive a future for a firm whose employees
are not responsible for their work performance even as a
"sitter." Work without responsibility is as bad as power
without responsibility. I cannot accept such a concept.
On the other hand the Union talks of extra pay for
responsibility. Why so? The members have been doing this
work for a considerable period. It is accepted by both
parties that the general skill level is rising all the time
to meet the customers' more sophisticated demands. I would
have thought that a better case could be made for imparting
such higher skills. That is a more acceptable way of
dealing with technological change and manufacturing
innovation than esoteric extrapolations on a theme called
'responsibility' by the parties.
In my view a problem exists in this area which will not go
away and which is not amenable to settlement within the
structure of a Rights Commissioner hearing. A more
thoughtful and structured approach is needed. In this
connection I would recommend that the parties meet to
consider if some assistance is necessary to investigate the
problem very thoroughly."
On 24th September, 1987 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissoner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance
with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 18th November, 1987 in Drogheda, a
hearing arranged for an earlier date was postponed as one of the
parties was unavailable.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When a machine operative on grade 5 and 6 is carrying out
the role of training a trainee they should receive the grade
4 rate which is applicable to the training of trainees.
Grade 4 has a differential of #15.95 more than grade 5. No
more than 2 workers would be involved in this operation in
any given week.
2. The grading system already has within its structure a
clause which states that when an employee is carrying out
duties which attracts a higher grade, that employee should
receive the higher grade for that period.
3. The operatives concerned have responsibilities. They
cannot stand or sit idly by as costly mistakes are made by
the trainees. Such behaviour would be a blatant dereliction
of duty to the Company's interests. They are expected to
impart such knowledge and know-how as they can to the
trainees. Failure to carry out these duties without
responsibility could cause serious damage to machinery at
high cost.
4. As the grade 5/6 operatives do not carry any monetary
reward for training operatives, the Rights Commissioner
failed to answer the question "was the employee entitled to
some form of compensation for the period of training." The
reason for this failure was due to the restrictions in the
structure and guidelines laid down for his position as a
Rights Commissioner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the start up of the Company the training procedure
known as "sitting with Nellie" has been used to train staff.
This method was used with the worker concerned at all
training stages of his career with the Company.
2. If a worker requires knowledge of a new position to which
he has been assigned he is first given over to one of the
designated training instructors, then placed in the area or
at the machine he is intended to operate. He is expressly
advised to direct any queries to the supervisor in the
particular area. The operative doing the job which it is
intended the "trainee" will learn is not responsible for the
new person's progress, any errors the trainee may make and he
makes no decisions regarding the new workers ability to do
the job.
3. The Company's product has not changed since start-up.
Neither have the manufacturing processes materially changed.
Therefore the skill required to make the Company's product
has not increased either.
4. The implication of concession of the claim is that any
time an employee demonstrates to, or advises another employee
in relation to the job he could claim entitlement to an
allowance. This is contrary to accepted norms in industry
generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the system of transferring experience
and information to trainee operatives does not warrant additional
payment to the trained operatives involved in the system.
While endorsing the Rights Commissioner's comment regarding the
element of responsibility involved the Court does not consider
further payment to be warranted.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
4th December, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.