Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88961 Case Number: LCR12370 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TILLOTSON LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim that 25 permanent grade B operators be re-graded to grade A and that 14 temporary grade B operators be offered permanent grade B status.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not find justification for recommending the immediate
promotion of (1) all 25 Grade B employees to Grade A positions or
(2) all 14 temporary Grade B staff to permanent positions.
The Court is satisfied that there would only have been two Grade A
vacancies to be filled at this time even had the two people not
been redeployed from the R & D Department. The Court therefore
recommends that these vacancies should now be filled without the
pre-condition of a training course in accordance with normal
procedure in the past. Two of the temporary Grade B employees
should be made permanent also on the same basis.
The Court further recommends that the parties should now discuss
the skill levels and training requirements within the Company as
developments in these areas are critical to the interests of both
workers and the Company. In this connection the proposals made at
Conciliation might form an appropriate basis for discussion.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88961 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12370
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TILLOTSON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim that 25 permanent grade B operators be re-graded to
grade A and that 14 temporary grade B operators be offered
permanent grade B status.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arose when the Company sought to redeploy two
staff members from its R & D Department to the machine shop area.
The Union objected to the redeployment on the basis of its
implications for the promotion prospects of the existing workers
in the machine shop area. The workforce in that area is
structured as follows:-
Grade A (11 workers) #180.25 per week.
Grade B (25 workers) #162.03 per week.
Temporary Grade B (14 workers) #158.50 per week.
During subsequent local level discussions on the matter the
Company put forward a proposal providing for the setting-up of a
training course for existing operators, to be run in conjunction
with FAS. Upon successfully completing the course, all
participating grade B operators would be regraded as grade A
operators and paid the appropriate rate. They would get the grade
A rate even though they may still, due to insufficient grade A
posts, be operating as grade B operators. This proposal was also
rejected by the Union. Following the failure of local level
discussions, the Company advised the Union of its intention to
press ahead with the redeployment of the two workers and they
reported for duty in the machine shop on the 17th October, 1988.
This led to a walk-out by the other workers for a full day. Work
resumed the following morning with a conciliation conference
arranged for that afternoon.
3. Following lengthy discussions, the Court's Industrial
Relations Officer put forward the following proposals which both
sides agreed to recommend for acceptance as a means of resolving
the dispute:-
- The Company will offer 10 of the existing 14
temporary Grade B operators permanent Grade B
appointments on a probationary basis. These 10
operators will be chosen at the Company's discretion
and should any individuals decline the offer, the
Company will not be obliged to make any further
offer. Those accepting the offer, to be made within
one week of settlement, will be paid the permanent
rate of #162.03 and will be required to complete the
FAS course successfully in order to complete
successfully their probation. The remaining
temporary Grade B operators will be free to undergo
the FAS course and will be made permanent if they
are successful.
- The Company will also select at its own discretion
two existing permanent Grade B operators for
appointment to Grade A posts on a probationary basis
(also within one week of settlement). These two
operators and the remaining permanent Grade B
operators will be appointed as permanent Grade A
operators on successfully completing the FAS course
(those promoted on completion of the course will
initially be promoted on a probationary basis as per
usual).
- Any operator appointed on a probationary basis who
does not successfully complete his/her FAS course
will revert to their original position.
- Existing Grade A operators (permanent) and existing
Grade B operators (permanent) will be free to attend
the Grade A and Grade B courses respectively. All
courses will be held during Company time.
- The two persons redeployed from R & D to the machine
shop area as setter/operators Grade A will have all
aspects of their employment in line with the
standard conditions pertaining to the position of
setter/operator Grade A.
- There will be no consequential claims arising from
the implementation of any aspect of these proposals.
- Any dispute arising in relation to the
implementation of these proposals will, if not
resolved locally be the subject of further
Conciliation.
These proposals were rejected by the workers and on the 21st
December, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Tralee on the 5th April, 1989 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An established promotions practice has existed in the
Company for a number of years. Where vacancies arose in the
machine shop in the Grade B category, the assembly line
operators would have first opportunity to apply for these
vacancies, initially on a temporary basis and as permanent
positions became available, they would be offered them. When
vacancies in Grade A became available they were advertised and
were normally offered to permanent Grade B workers.
2. At no time were the workers obliged to undertake any
training course before they were offered permanency or
regrading as all training was carried out internally and on
most occasions by the workers themselves. The last occasion
regrading took place in the machine shop was in October, 1986,
when A and B Grades were first introduced. On that occasion
the workers did not have to complete any training course
before they were regraded but they did take part in an AnCO
training course on a voluntary basis afterwards.
3. The Union requests that its members employed in the
machine shop be treated on the same terms as the two members
of staff who were redeployed into the highest grade in the
machine shop without undertaking any training course.
Consequently the 14 temporary people should be offered
permanent Grade B positions and the 25 permanent Grade B
people should be offered permanent Grade A positions.
Furthermore, if the Company is to offer the facility of a
training course, it should be done on a voluntary basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union has consistently argued that one of the two
workers whose redeployment is at the centre of this dispute
has little or no experience in the machine shop area.
However, it should be noted that both workers have previously
worked there and therefore, the concerns raised by the Union
are groundless. The worker concerned is proficient and will
be in a position to undertake his work in the machine shop
given that he had been involved in complex set-ups while in
the Product Engineering Department. He had previously been a
tool and cutter grinder, an operation which paid more than the
rate paid to the operators in the machine room. He was in
fact promoted to the position of tool and cutter grinder from
the machine shop area.
5. 2. The Company responded generously and positively to the
Union's views by offering the facility of the training course
and in guaranteeing the Grade A rate of pay to any of the
Grade B operators who successfully completed the course even
if they have to remain on Grade B work because of insufficient
Grade A posts.
3. There is no automatic progression from Grade B to Grade A
simply on the basis of experience.
4. During local discussions, the Union argued that if the two
staff positions in the R & D section were being eliminated,
the incumbent workers should be made redundant rather than be
redeployed. However, the Company pointed out that a number of
key articles in the House Agreement suggest that redeployment
is provided for and is the right of the employer (details
supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not find justification for recommending the immediate
promotion of (1) all 25 Grade B employees to Grade A positions or
(2) all 14 temporary Grade B staff to permanent positions.
The Court is satisfied that there would only have been two Grade A
vacancies to be filled at this time even had the two people not
been redeployed from the R & D Department. The Court therefore
recommends that these vacancies should now be filled without the
pre-condition of a training course in accordance with normal
procedure in the past. Two of the temporary Grade B employees
should be made permanent also on the same basis.
The Court further recommends that the parties should now discuss
the skill levels and training requirements within the Company as
developments in these areas are critical to the interests of both
workers and the Company. In this connection the proposals made at
Conciliation might form an appropriate basis for discussion.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Nicholas Fitzgerald
1st May, 1989. ____________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.