Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87244 Case Number: LCR11421 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ORAL B LTD - and - NEETU |
Claim for the retention of a differential.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the circumstances in this case the Court
recommends that the payment of the differential concerned should
cease and that the employee concened be compensated by the payment
of a lump sum equivalent to the value of the differential for a
period of six months.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87244 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11421
CC87217 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11421
Parties: ORAL B LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF IRELAND)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the retention of a differential.
Background:
2. Oral B is engaged in the manufacture of dental care products,
and has a factory located in Newbridge, Co. Kildare. The worker
concerned in this case was originally employed as a maintenance
electrician in January, 1984. In June, 1984, the worker made an
agreement with the Company which gave him a 25% differential over
the other craftsmen in the Company. This differential was paid in
respect of a number of extra duties and responsibilities.
According to the Company, these mainly related to an injection
moulding section, for which the worker underwent and successfully
completed specialist training. Since that time the Company has
undergone substantial growth and has recruited a Plant Engineer, a
Project Engineer, a Lead Setter, a Moulding Engineer and a Junior
Engineer. The changes have particularly impacted on the injection
moulding department, and the Company stated that the technological
requirements have moved far beyond what can be reasonably and
satisfactorily achieved within the agenda of "extra moulding
responsibilities." As a result of both the additional
recruitment and the changes in the Company's operations, the
Company no longer requires the worker to perform the additional
duties which he undertook in June, 1984, and propose to terminate
the differentials. There is no suggestion that the worker was
unsatisfactory in his work throughout the period in question.
Following local discussions the Company agreed with the Union that
it would continue to pay the differential pending the processing
of the case through agreed procedures. On 9th February, 1987, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 24th March, 1987.
No agreement was reached and on 25th March, 1987, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 13th August, 1987 - the
earliest date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) When the worker negotiated his 25% differential he was
presented with terms of employment which were
substantially different from those of the other
craftsmen in the Company, only four of which refer to
the mould injection process per se.
(ii) The worker has not ceased to perform duties relating to
the injection moulding process and his specialist
skills and knowledge are still required for the smooth
operation of the injection moulding machines.
(iii) Since he was given the differential in 1984, the worker
has carried out all the duties required of him
willingly and competently. It is unjust to deprive him
of the level of earnings to which he has grown
accustomed, without any good reason for so doing.
There has never been an objection from any other worker
in the Company about the differential, and no complaint
is likely to occur now. The Court is respectfully
asked to recommenced retention of the differential.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The impact of technological growth in the Company has
been particularly impressive in the injection moulding
department. The technological requirements have moved
far beyond what can be reasonably and satisfactorily
achieved within the agenda of "extra moulding
responsibilities." That department is now structured
as a separate operation within the plant and headed up
by a technically and academically qualified Moulding
Manager supported by a Lead Setter Operator and two
Setters. A qualified toolmaker is also on contract to
the Company to look after the care and maintenance of
moulding tools. The full resources of the Maintenance
Department and the Staff Engineering group are also
available to the Moulding Manager to meet the challenge
of the ever more sophisticated demands of an ultra
modern moulding shop.
(b) The requirement for an electrician with extra
responsibilities has simply been made obsolete by the
growth in the Company, and the ensuing technological
changes. The worker is no longer required to carry out
the extra moulding responsibilities and to continue the
extra payment for no reason is to perpetuate an
anomalous and inequitable situation as this additional
payment is not available to the other maintenance craft
personnel.
(c) The Company has been reasonable in its approach to this
issue. The worker, despite doing the same work as
other electricians, has now retained a 25% differential
for in excess of 32 weeks. Under no circumstances can
this situation be allowed to continue it would be
totally inequitable, and would be potentially
disruptive to the industrial relations situation in the
Company. The Court is respectfully requested to
recommend the immediate cessation of the arrangement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the circumstances in this case the Court
recommends that the payment of the differential concerned should
cease and that the employee concened be compensated by the payment
of a lump sum equivalent to the value of the differential for a
period of six months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
_____________________________
Deputy Chairman.
21st September, 1987.
P.F./J.C.