Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87183 Case Number: LCR11160 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIDARE LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim, by the Union on behalf of 6 workers for upgrading and for a revision of the grading structure.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is not satisfied that the changes, which have taken place in the
method of performing the work of the 6 claimants since the job was
last evaluated, justify a re-grading. The Court accordingly does
not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court is concerned at the lack of progress in implementing the
terms of the last paragraph of Labour Court Recommendation 9219.
The Court recommends that the parties commence negotiations
immediately with a view to establishing an "in house" job
evaluation committee to include worker participation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87183 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11160
CC8758 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11160
Parties: UNIDARE P.L.C.
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union on behalf of 6 workers for upgrading and
for a revision of the grading structure.
Background:
2. The Company, based in Finglas, is part of the Unidare P.L.C.
Engineering Group, with plants in the U.K. The Company's Finglas
plant has in existence a nine point graded pay structure (grade
0-8). There is also some plus payments in certain areas,
including a "lengthology" payment. This payment was devised in
1976 and got it's name from the extra length of machinery when
changes were made. This payment is currently #5.89 per week. The
workers concerned were put on a monosil extruder in 1984, regraded
from grade 7 to the top grade (grade 8) and also received a
"lengthology" payment. Following modifications to the machines in
1986, the workers sought a Technology Related Efficiency Value
(T.R.E.V.) payment. The claim was rejected by the Company,
arguing that the "lengthology" payment covers new technology. On
9th January, 1987 the issue was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement was reached between the
parties at a conciliation conference held on 3rd March, 1987,
therefore the matter was referred on 9th March, 1987, to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 6th April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The workers concerned were graded in 1984, based on the
job content at that time. Since then the monosil
operation has changed from a semi-skilled job to a job
requiring a high degree of technical awareness,
resulting in savings in production and a higher quality
of output. Additional equipment added to the line has
led to an increase in the skill, responsibility and
work content for the operators concerned.
(b) In order to remain within the scope of the existing
structures, the Union are seeking an extension of the
"lengthology" payment rather than a T.R.E.V. payment.
Given the extent of the changes in work content on the
monosil line, an extended lengthology payment of #12
per week (i.e. an extra #6.11 per week) would in the
Union's view be a fair and valid reflection of the
value of work performed. If the nature of the job
changes and the skill and responsibility levels
increase, but are not reflected in pay because the pay
structure was devised for a different technological age
(20 years ago), how else can this factor be addressed?
(c) In Labour Court Recommendation 9,219, the Court
recommended that "discussions take place between the
parties during the currency of this agreement with a
view to rationalising the present grading structure.
Any agreement reached should not be of a cost
increasing nature." Whilst there has been some
discussion on this issue over the last two years, there
has been no notable progress. The Company operate the
grade system as a management tool with no inputs from
the Union. The Union is not party to the deliberations
of the grading committee, have been refused information
on the system of grading used, method of assessment and
have no knowledge of the ranking of individual jobs
related one to another. The Union believes that any
revision of the grading system should include
participation from the the shop floor representatives,
who can make a valid contribution.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The purpose of attachments to machines is to assist
operators by way of aids to complete tasks already
required of them by the process and already paid for
within the existing structure. For this reason the
Company has always resisted claims of the T.R.E.V.
nature. The use of many, if not all, plant control and
monitoring aids tends to reduce the workload of
individual operators when the emphasis switches from
manual effort to one of care and attention. This
occurs in terms of the extent to which process control
is included within machine control as part of the
automatic process requiring visual attention.
(ii) If and when requirements for machine manning should
change to a higher level of technology, then the
Company may well call for or require the operation of
such plant by technicians. This could arise if
operational demands proved to be beyond the level of
the existing production grade structure.
Notwithstanding that were such to occur in the future,
that technicians would be the most likely avenue the
Company see as the way forward, the existing grade
structure covers the needs and requirements of all
present work.
(iii) It is the Company's view that this claim is
substantially a re-activation of a Union claim of
1980/'81, seeking to change the Company's job grade
system. In this context Labour Court Recommendation
No. 6055 (paragraph 10) on this matter, states; "The
Court recommends to the Union that it should place
before the Job Evaluation Appeals Committee any claim
which it may wish to pursue related to the contention
that the pay of a particular group as compared with pay
of unskilled workers has fallen out of line with the
corresponding relationship in outside employment; the
Company rejects the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is not satisfied that the changes, which have taken place in the
method of performing the work of the 6 claimants since the job was
last evaluated, justify a re-grading. The Court accordingly does
not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court is concerned at the lack of progress in implementing the
terms of the last paragraph of Labour Court Recommendation 9219.
The Court recommends that the parties commence negotiations
immediately with a view to establishing an "in house" job
evaluation committee to include worker participation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens.
___________________________
Deputy Chairman
7th May, 1987
B.O'N./J.C.