Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88887 Case Number: LCR12200 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of 120 workers for regrading.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Unions accept the outcome of the
I.P.C. findings.
The Court further recommends that the parties discuss, at local
level, the issues of revised rates and dates of application. Such
discussions should be concluded by the 1st February, 1989.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88887 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12200
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 120 workers for regrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986, the Union's served a claim for regrading based on the
fact that the skill and responsibility levels required were not
reflected in the rates of pay. Following protracted local
discussions, during which the Company offered a #5 differential
for certain categories on the provision that their job functions
and responsibilities would be redefined. The parties agreed to
enter into a job evaluation exercise with the assistance of the
Irish Productivity Centre (I.P.C.). The I.P.C.'s consultant was
given agreed terms of reference. (See Appendix 1). The
consultant studied 4 benchmark jobs, 2 at H2 grade and 2 at the
lower H3 grade. He found that the present system of 2 grades
should be replaced by a 4 grade structure A-D with the H2 and H3
grades being redesignated at C and D respectively. It was up to
the parties to negotiate on rates for the new grades A and B. The
Company accepted the I.P.C. findings and offered a differential of
+#7 above grade C for grade B and +#14 for grade A. (The H2 grade
already has a #5 differential above H3). The Unions argued that
the 2 workers in the H2 grade, examined by the I.P.C. were above
average and this led to the scoring of the H2 grades being higher
than was justified. This, as a result reduced the number of jobs
graded above H2. The Unions also disputed the rates being
offered, and after interviews with the job holders and examination
of job specifications by the Unions' industrial engineer,
suggested having 3 grades above H2. The Union's quantified these
grades as having differentials between #12-#45 above H2. The
Company was not prepared to renegotiate the I.P.C.'s findings and
the matter was referred, on 27th October, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be
reached at a conciliation service held on 16th November, 1988 and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 18th November,
1988, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 1st December, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions are aware from discussions at the specialist
committee level (i.e. one expert from the Company, the Unions
and the I.P.C. consultant as chairman), that disagreement
arose when agreement was sought on which H2 jobs should be
chosen for examination as the benchmark. Relief operators and
moulding machine setters were chosen. However, when the
question of scoring the jobs arose, the Unions' expert had a
major disagreement with the scoring which emerged for the
relief operator as it overvalued the job considerably, thus
distorting any findings.
2. The relief operator chosen was an exceptional worker and
had wide experience of all jobs in the plant, including
methods laboratory work, and could not be construed as
average. The evaluation of the job may also have included
aspects of what the job is going to become rather than what it
actually was at the time. The Unions did consider the report,
which provided for some upgrading, but rejected it because of
the overvaluing of the H2 job.
3. The parties have reached an impasse on the issue and the
Unions believe that the consultants report is one sided. The
Company's offer of #14 and #7 for the new categories A and B
respectively is unacceptable. The Unions however, believe
that the financial terms can be resolved locally. The Unions
believe that a legitimate case can also be made for
retrospection.
4. The Unions request the Court to recommend that a wider
number of H2 job holders be examined (10 to 12), that the H2
job as is is and not as it maybe in the future be examined,
that the evaluation and scoring be carried out jointly by the
I.P.C. and the Unions' industrial engineer with full access to
observing work as performed (the Unions' industrial engineer
has been denied access), and that negotiations then proceed on
the basis of an agreed report.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The jobs which are recommended for higher grading over H2
grade are clearly jobs of greater responsibility than H2
grade. The Company's acceptance of 2 new higher grades as
distinct from 1 higher grade reflects the Company's
appreciation that some of the jobs scored significantly higher
than others above H2 level. The Company's offer is applicable
when the jobs evolve into their new form and the
responsibilities are taken up by employees. Allowing for
training and assessment the Company would envisage, at latest,
application date as being 1st February, 1989.
2. The Unions' claims for increases as high as #45 per week
is simply unjustifiable in the context of the responsibilities
involved. The Company's offer of #7 per week and #14 per week
increase represents a fair increase for the additional
responsibilities involved.
3. The Unions' argument in respect of the benchmark job
ignores the agreement which existed on the scoring systems,
the job description for the job concerned, and the fact that
two such jobs were observed by the I.P.C. This renders
irrelevant the skill level of a single individual observed in
the context of the exercise. The purpose of this observation
was to confirm the accuracy of the job descriptions, not to
study individuals.
4. I.P.C. consultants are generally recognised as
professional, capable and objective, and rejection of their
report out of hand simply lacks credibility.
5. What has happened is that the Unions had unrealistic
expectations of the level of skill and responsibility of some
jobs based on lack of knowledge of the full range of jobs, and
an exaggerated opinion of the level of jobs in which they were
directly involved. The Unions then made claims on this
unsound basis. They agreed to a job evaluation exercise, the
consultant, the terms of reference, the list of jobs, the job
descriptions, the benchmark jobs, and the points scoring
system to be used; but when the result didn't turn out in line
with their expectations they rejected it. They agreed with
everything that went to bring about the result but rejected
the result.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Unions accept the outcome of the
I.P.C. findings.
The Court further recommends that the parties discuss, at local
level, the issues of revised rates and dates of application. Such
discussions should be concluded by the 1st February, 1989.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
4th January, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.
APPENDIX 1
Terms of Reference:
At a meeting on Thursday, 10th March, 1988, both parties agreed on
the following I.P.C. Terms of Reference:-
(1) To evaluate the claim for upgrading of the agreed list of jobs
on the basis of the job descriptions prepared by management.
(2) To employ the I.P.C./Packard Job Scoring System to socre and
grade jobs.
(3) To score 4 agreed H2 and H3 benchmark jobs which are not in
contention and to use thsee scorings as a basis for
establishing a break point between existing grades.
(4) To then proceed to score the jobs which are the subject of the
upgrading claim.
(5) To discuss draft scorings with a specialist Committee,
consisting of one Union expert, one Company expert and I.P.C.
as Chairman.
(6) Based on the resulting scorings, I.P.C. will then recommend
appropriate grades for those jobs to this Committee. Where
warranted, I.P.C. may recommend the introduction of a new
grade or grades.
(7) It will be the job of Management and Unions to negotiate rates
of pay for any new grades recommended.