Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8787 Case Number: LCR11190 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ORAL B LTD - and - FWUI |
Dispute concerning the regrading of two categories of workers, 'red pack' (4 workers) and quality control inspectors (6 workers).
Recommendation:
5. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties the Court has come to the conclusion that the Union's case
for regrading either the red pack operatives or the quality
control inspectors has not been sustained. The Court therefore
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
____________________
19th____May,______1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8787 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11190
CC862093 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11190
Parties: ORAL B LABORATORIES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the regrading of two categories of workers,
'red pack' (4 workers) and quality control inspectors (6 workers).
Background:
2. In December, 1983 the Company concluded a comprehensive
agreement with the FWUI and NEETU governing terms and conditions
of employment. This agreement incorporated a four grade structure
and the allocation of various categories of worker within these
grades. The Company commenced production in January 1984 and
currently employs 150 workers. In mid 1986 the Union sought the
regrading of 'Red Pack' from grade 1 to grade 2 and quality
control inspectors from grade 2 to grade 3. The claim was
rejected by the Company. It was agreed that industrial engineers
from the Company and Union would examine the claim and issue a
report. There was an agreed report regarding the 'red pack' but a
full consensus was not reached in respect of the quality control
inspectors. Subsequent to the issue of the report, negotiations
took place in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The Union
proposed a restructuring of the grading scheme which would allow
for a compromise grading. This was rejected by the Company and
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 18th December, 1986. A conciliation conference was held
on 5th February, 1987. As no agreement was possible, both parties
agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Newbridge
on 18th March, 1987.
Union's Arguments:
Red Pack
3. (a) The 'red pack' machine boxes and 'selo wraps' a
particular toothbrush with an angular shape. Two
operators are assigned to the process, one to feed the
machine manually and the other to box, weigh and check
the product at the 'take off' end. Both operatives are
currently assigned to grade 1, the lowest paid grade in
the Company.
(b) The apparent reason for the present grading of these jobs
is that the work is adjudged to be similar to other
machine feeding and packing jobs. However, this work is
different in a number of important respects. Firstly,
the jobs involve a high level of machine adjustment
rectification and setting of reels, etc. Secondly, the
feeding work in particular demands a very high level of
physical dexterity. Because of the particular skills and
expertise required to operate the process it is not
possible to allocate other 'feeders/packers' to this
process as is the normal procedure on other machines,
without output and material utilisation dropping
significantly. For this reason the workers are required
to remain at the 'red pack' process despite the fact that
they are fully qualified to perform duties on other
machines. This loss of mobility has a detrimental effect
on working conditions.
(c) While the joint evaluation found the job to be just short
of parity with a grade 2 job (stores/location/forklift
driver) the difference was quite small (13%) thus
indicating that the work was likely to be of a higher
value than the normal grade 1 job.
(d) Quality Control: The work of the quality control
inspectors demands a high level of skill and expertise.
They are required to assist in the design and
implementation of new quality control systems, research
and development work on new products, processes or raw
materials and the preparation of weekly and monthly
reports. A high level of co-ordination with managers,
setters, and operatives is required in the process of
problem solving.
(e) The Company job evaluation system places emphasis on
physical work and is clearly not suited to non manual
functions. As a consequence the job of quality control
inspector is undervalued.
(f) Although comparisons with other companies can be
misleading because of the varying nature and importance
of the quality control function, cases can be cited which
demonstrate that the relative position of quality control
inspectors is higher elsewhere (details supplied to the
Court). In most companies, however, quality control
Inspectors have 'staff' status and are not classified
with hourly paid operatives.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) Red Pack Regrading
It appears that the claim for red pack regrading arose as
this area did not exist when the Company commenced
production and was only laterally introduced. The Union
committee has claimed there was no prior consultation on
the appropriate grade for operatives in this area. Both
the ICTU adviser and the Company industrial engineer
agree, however, that it is appropriately graded.
(ii) Quality Control Inspectors:
The reason for the claim for regrading by the quality
control inspectors was as a result of them taking on
additional duties. The Company fully accept that there
has been an amendment in duties in response to the
Company's development. This was always envisaged and
will continue to happen as the Company continues to
develop. There is no disagreement between the ICTU
adviser and the Company industrial engineer on the
question of work content - the original basis for the
claim.
(iii) There is a major inconsistency in the findings of the
ICTU work adviser on the one point in difference
knowledge/qualifications. Despite the fact that this is
the point on which the adviser sees justification for the
regrading, not all of the inspectors possess such a
qualification.
(iv) The question of third level qualification is not a
prerequisite for the job. There are other qualities and
attributes which were also very important. The
imposition of minimum third level educational standards
as a precondition for the job would be a potentially
unfair and unnecesasary restriction on possible
promotional opportunities from lower grades.
(v) Any attempt to introduce regrading on the basis of such
marginal differences would lead to substantial knock-on
consequences to the other categories within the Company.
This would have very serious implications which are
unacceptable to the Company.
Recommendation:
5. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties the Court has come to the conclusion that the Union's case
for regrading either the red pack operatives or the quality
control inspectors has not been sustained. The Court therefore
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
____________________
19th____May,______1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.