Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88713 Case Number: LCR12151 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BAXTER HEALTHCARE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of four laboratory technicians for upgrading.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the claim put forward by the
Union is covered by the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery and accordingly does not recommend concession of the
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88713 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12151
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BAXTER HEALTHCARE LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of four laboratory technicians for upgrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed in the microbiology
laboratory as laboratory assistants. Their current rate of pay
(at the top of the five year scale) is #148.43 and they are
seeking the utility rate of #165.66. The Union served a claim for
regrading on the Company in June, 1988, which was rejected. Local
level discussions failed to resolve the issue and on the 4th July,
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference in Castlebar on the 26th August
failed to resolve the issue and on the 19th September it was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 14th November, 1988, in Castlebar.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Over the past few years the claimants' jobs in the
microbiology laboratory have changed significantly. Their
work has become a lot more responsible. Much of what they
now do was previously done by supervisors (full list of the
claimants' duties supplied to the Court).
3.2 Similar work is carried out to the same level of
responsibility by the assistant chemist in the chemical
laboratory. However, those in the chemical laboratory are
paid a much higher level.
3.3 During negotiations on the issue the Company argued that the
claim was barred both by the Programme for National Recovery
(PNR) and by the terms of the Company/Union Agreement. The
Union refutes both these arguments. The PNR does not debar
the claim as it is based on increased productivity and
responsibility. The Company/Union Agreement is not relevant
because:
- the context in which this clause was agreed was in fact
many years ago when the Union sought differentials in
claims during the re-negotiation of the agreement. The
members received extra money at that time in return for
shelving those claims.
- the clause in question has since continued as part of
the procedural agreement as much by default as anything
else.
- the claim is not being made on the basis of job
evaluation.
- the claimants are not seeking a differential but rather
upgrading.
3.4 The Union has endeavoured to show that extra work and
responsibility has passed to the claimants and the Court is
respectfully requested to recognise this and recommend that
they be compensated for this by way of upgrading to at least
the level of utility.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The existing structure and method of grouping job functions
has been in existence since 1972 and was derived from similar
structures existing in other Company plants. The Company has
been to the Labour Court in the past regarding claims for
differentials and changes to the job structure (LCRs 4458,
7353 and 9039 refer). Following LCR4458 a negotiated
agreement between the Company and the Union was concluded
(details supplied). In LCR7353 the Court recognised this
agreement and rejected a differential claim for QC checkers.
Claims for differentials have arisen on other occasions
since. The Company has always resisted these successfully
and this position was upheld by the Court in LCR9039.
4.2 The main specific tasks for each job have not changed since
the laboratory was established. Any procedural type changes
which may have been implemented would be consistent with such
changes to any similar jobs in the plant. The need for
change, providing better quality products at competitive
prices, affects all employees equally and is part of the
Company's ongoing approach to its business.
4.3 Rates of pay and conditions of employment are competitive vis
a vis those prevailing in the region for similar work.
4.4 The consequences of changing this well-established pay
structure or changing job classifications for the benefit of
a small minority of employees would have serious knock-on
effects, leading to much higher costs and ultimately
competitiveness. Furthermore, any changes to a
well-established structure will cause dissatisfaction among
employees, reduce flexibility and lead to a disruption of
teamwork which is very necessary in the manufacture of
healthcare products.
4.5 In an effort to resolve the issue before referral to the
Court, the Company offered the possibility of providing
facilities for the claimants to achieve a third level
educational qualification so that they could compete for
more senior positions.
4.6 The Company/Union agreement does not provide for claims of
this type. Wages Clause No. 3 states "it is agreed that no
change will be made by way of job evaluation or claims for
differentials under the terms of this Agreement". In
addition, this issue was not the subject of a claim as part
of these negotiations.
4.7 Under the terms of Claus 4 of the PNR ("it is agreed that no
further cost increasing claims will be made on employers")
the claim also fails. It was not subject to ongoing local
negotiations in advance of the implementation of the PNR and
is therefore clearly debarred by Clause 4.
4.8 The current job and pay structure is long established and has
served both the Company and the Union well. Any departure
from this is not in the interests of the vast majority of
employees or of the Company's longer term competitive
position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the claim put forward by the
Union is covered by the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery and accordingly does not recommend concession of the
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th December, 1988 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG Deputy Chairman