Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86916 Case Number: LCR11029 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRAUN (I) LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim in respect of 15 workers for the restoration of pay relationship between vertical moulding machine operatives and horizontal moulding machine operatives.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the sole basis upon which relativities
are established is the job evaluation system and does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86916 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11029
CC867478 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11029
PARTIES: BRAUN (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim in respect of 15 workers for the restoration of pay
relationship between vertical moulding machine operatives and
horizontal moulding machine operatives.
Background:
2. The Company which is situated in Carlow employs approximately
900 workers in the manufacture of hair dryers, curling tongs, etc.
In 1978, at the request of the Union the Company introduced a job
evaluation scheme based on a points system. Each operation is
assessed under different headings and a grade is established
according to the total number of points awarded. A committee
comprising of Company/Union representatives carries out the
evaluation. From time to time grades may be subject to
re-evaluation for various reasons. In July, 1986 the horizontal
machine operation was examined by the committee because of a
change in duties. This resulted in the workers been up-graded
from grade (6) to grade (7). The Union on behalf of the vertical
machine operatives Grade (6) then claimed a similar up-grading
on the basis that there always had been a pay relationship between
the two grades because they were interchangeable. This claim was
rejected by the Company. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 8th September, 1986.
A conciliation conference was held on 10th October, 1986. At the
conciliation conference the matter could not be resolved and both
parties agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
in Carlow on 20th January, 1987 a date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) In July, 1985 the moulding department was restructured
resulting in the vertical machine operation been moved
to another part of the factory. However following the
move the grades remained at Grade (6) and although the
area was separated the workers still remained
interchangeable.
(b) The current situation is that both sets of workers
still remain interchangeable. Recently 2 workers from
the vertical section have operated the machines in the
horizontal section. Even though they have been paid at
Grade (7) while on this work it is not sufficient.
(c) The moulding department was and still is totally
flexible and interchangeable and it is unfair not to
maintain the long standing pay relationship which
existed.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) All employees who are covered by the scope of our
in-house agreement are required by the agreement to
be interchangeable between jobs. This was in our
initial in-house agreement and the subsequent
agreement which was re-negotiated and came into
effect in March, 1983.
(ii) The job evaluation scheme determines the job grade
for each operation. By subjecting each and every job
to evaluation we provide a means for establishing and
maintaining an equitable wage/grade relationship
between jobs.
(iii) Employees who are transferred on a temporary basis to
higher grade jobs for two hours or more in a shift
are paid the higher grade rates as determined by our
job evaluation scheme.
(iv) Employees who are transferred to a higher job grade
for more than 50 shifts in a 12 months period retain
the transfer on a permanent basis as determined by
our job evaluation scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view that the sole basis upon which relativities
are established is the job evaluation system and does not
therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
___________________
27th February, 1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.