Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87904 Case Number: LCR11751 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: MERCK, SHARP & DOHME (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning upgrading of eight control room attendants.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and having visited the plant and inspected the control room, is
satisfied that the control room attendants are graded correctly.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
However in view of the fact that in emergencies the C.R.A. must
remain at his post the Court recommends that the Company regard
all the C.R.A.s as part of the fire crew and pay them the fire
crew bonus subject to the present conditions.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87904 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11751
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(2)
PARTIES: MERCK, SHARP & DOHME (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning upgrading of eight control room attendants.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures bulk pharmaceutical chemicals and
employs approximately 250 workers at its plant in Ballydine,
Clonmel, Co. Tipperary. The plant is a modular multi-product
computer controlled facility which is operated on a four-shift,
seven-day basis. The grading structure in the Company covers four
grades. The CRAs are in grade A, which is the highest grade,
along with boilerhouse operators and three clerks. The CRAs
operate on a four shift system. In the event of emergency one CRA
must remain in the control room to shut down. This requirement to
shut down had the effect that these CRAs could not join the
firefighting crew. The existing bonus for the firefighting crew
is #350. In November, 1986 the Union claimed that the grading of
the control room attendants should be reviewed. The Company
rejected the claim. The parties agreed to refer the matter to the
Labour Court for a hearing on an arbitrational basis under Section
20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 3rd February, 1988 in Waterford. The Court
visited the plant on 1st March, 1988 and inspected the work of the
control room attendants and of the boilerhouse operators.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are sound and justifiable reasons why the Company
should agree to an upward review of the wage rates of the
workers to adequately compensate for work performed.
2. The difference in basic pay of each group is approximately
#7 per week which is for duties which are not much different
apart from size of workload and responsibility. In the case
of the control room attendants there are vast differences
which if quantified would have to take into account a range of
duties and responsibilities which are way and above those in
other grades as well as the special position of being at the
pulse of the operation and answerable and responsible to every
aspect of the plant which nobody else in other grades has to
undertake.
3. 3. When the various categories were being established in the
start-up of the plant in 1976, the Company designated certain
groups to particular categories and for control room
attendants the group was categorised as grade A. At that time
the Union was not in a position to challenge or contradict the
Company decision because the detail and extent of the
operation was unknown. In the light of the experience of the
plants operation a grievance was formally lodged in 1978 by
the control room attendants for an upward review of their
wages. After an investigation by the Company the claim was
formally rejected.
4. The Company has an on-going programme of updating of its
administrating and manufacturing facilities which requires
training and retraining and the acquiring of new and expanding
skills and involves the whole workforce. The impact of this
new technology down the years has had an extraordinary high
demand on the skills, responsibility and extent of the
workload of control room attendants which the Union claims was
neither quantified or visualised when the original group
designation was established.
5. The work consists of checking and monitoring the entire
production on monitors. Receiving and answering queries from
the production area and checking with various people as to
procedure and safety and issuing instructions where necessary
to comply with production procedures.
6. The workers operate in an artificial atmosphere, are
subject to eye strain monitoring controls and receiving
signals from all over the plant and have to work at a level
which is akin to that of a supervisor.
7 There is a high risk of fire in the plant because of the
nature of the business and fire prevention is of the highest
priority. There are 12 alarm systems situated in the control
room including fire alarms, covering all the site from process
building to boilerhouse and tankfarm.
8. The control room attendants are responsible in a special
way for safety of the plant and there is a procedure in place
whereby they are obliged to close down all systems in the
event of fire or similar disaster, thereby having to work in
what could be a highly dangerous situation when other
colleagues throughout the plant are expected to leave in such
emergencies.
9. The plant has its own firefighting unit and all employees
are eligible for membership of this brigade except the control
room attendants. This is because control room attendants must
remain in the control room in the event of fire to implement
closing down procedure where necessary. This precludes the
control room attendants from a possible earning of at least
#1,000 per annum which is in addition to their normal
earnings.
3. 10. Because of there being only two control room attendants
per shift they are precluded from other activities within the
plant as the absence of one at any time constitutes a 50%
reduction in manning levels and this is unacceptable for any
long duration outside the normal tea breaks.
11. As this plant operates on a continuing basis and because
of the high technological and sophisticated nature of the
process there are procedures to hand over to the incoming
control room attendants and because of the workload in the
Control Room, the changeover instructions are more complex and
detailed and the time required to do this is greater than in
other parts of the plant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Control room attendants are graded at the top operator
grade (grade A) which is appropriate for their duties and
responsibilities.
2. The workers level of responsibilities has not changed in
any fundamental way relative to other grades since the plant
started operations.
3. The control room attendants workload may be high at times
while at other times it may be lower than their capacity to
handle. Workload alone is not a justification for upgrading a
position.
4. Over the years the jobs of the majority of employees have
changed as the Company developed, expanded and gained
production experience. New duties have been added and others
removed as is normal in a developing company. The rate of
change is greater in a high technology operation and this is
reflected in the rates of pay for all categories.
5. The position of the workers is given due recognition by
placing them at the top operating grade.
6. The rate of pay of the workers is highly competitive and
compares well with other good employments.
7. The workers have been fairly graded and rewarded given
their level of responsibility relative to other grades.
8. The Company's grading structure and pay level fairly
reflects the responsibilities and duties of the control room
attendant position and these positions are fairly graded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
and having visited the plant and inspected the control room, is
satisfied that the control room attendants are graded correctly.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
However in view of the fact that in emergencies the C.R.A. must
remain at his post the Court recommends that the Company regard
all the C.R.A.s as part of the fire crew and pay them the fire
crew bonus subject to the present conditions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
18th March, 1988
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.