Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89543 Case Number: LCR12575 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IMED LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union that 3 workers be compensated for loss of grade.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties and having
taken account of circumstances at the time of the re-organisation
of the Moulding Department, and since, the Court recommends that
the three claimants who were made the earlier offer of #753, #770,
#857 should be paid #900, #925 and #1,000 respectively in full and
final settlement of this claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89543 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12575
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IMED LTD
(Represented by the Federated Workers Union of Ireland)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that 3 workers be compensated for loss of
grade.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company concerned in this dispute is engaged in the
manufacturing of health care equipment. The Company which is in
operation since 1981 is in an expansionary phase, and regularly
updates its processes and procedures. The Company/Union agreement
reflects this fact by providing for both the upgrading and
downgrading of workers in certain circumstances. Over a period of
time the Company has updated and improved its inspection system in
the moulding room. Three automated processes (air gauging,
parameter verification, and dimensional measurement) have been
introduced. Five workers were employed in the moulding department
at the grade of inspector. Two of the workers concerned were
offered comparable work in quality inspection with no loss, and
accepted this offer. The three other workers were downgraded from
Inspector (Grade 3) in the moulding department to General
Operative (Grade 1). The Union on behalf of the workers, sought
compensation for the downgrading. Agreement could not be reached
at local level, and on 18 October, 1988 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences took on 6 December, 1988, and 3 May, 1989. At the
December conference the parties agreed to recommend for acceptance
to following proposals:-
1. Two of the Inspectors accept on a voluntary basis
comparable jobs in Quality Inspection with no loss.
2. The remaining three Inspectors to receive compensation
as offered, i.e., the value of the difference in rate
for three years (as if the rate were red-circled) plus
average overtime worked on that differential.
3. Both parties recognise the company's right to transfer
staff to other shifts at management's discretion as per
Section 11 of the Company/Union Agreement and this
settlement does not compromise that right in any way.
4. The three Inspectors referred to at 2 above will act as
trainers for a period of three months from 1st
December, 1988, receiving 10% differential on the
Inspector's rate for this.
5. In recognition of their experience, the workers
concerned will continue to be paid the inspection rate
for a further three months while they support the newly
trained production operators.
6. The company accepts that these people have acted
satisfactorily in a Grade 3 capacity and will
favourably consider them for suitable vacancies at that
level that arise in the future.
These proposals were subsequently rejected in a secret ballot.
At the conciliation conference held in May, 1989 the Company
withdrew its offer of the training allowance (Point 4 of the
previous proposals) as the training period had elapsed. Following
protracted discussions, the parties agreed to recommend the
following lump sum payments in final settlement of the dispute,
#900, #925 and #1,000. This was again rejected by secret ballot
of the Union. The workers concerned contend that they will
continue to carry out most of the tasks performed when at Grade 3,
and that there are even added responsibilities. They further
contend that the only thing which has changed is their jobs title
and salary level. The Union is now seeking #3000 per employee in
compensation. On 6 July 1989 the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Letterkenny on 13 September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The loss in wages to the workers concerned is
significant, and will have a serious impact on their standard
of living. Two of the employees concerned have to bear
substantial transport costs in getting to and from work, and
the remaining claimant has to make a substantial contribution
in rent for a flat in Letterkenny.
2. The workers will continue to carry out most of the
functions of Grade 3. There are also some added
responsibilities. Apart from not having to keep records on
paper, the changes from Grade 3 are insignificant. The Union
accepts that circumstances change, and that restructuring may
be necessary. Consideration however, should be given to the
workers sensitivities, and to the traumatic effects a
regrading may have.
3. The workers involved have given total commitment and
loyalty to the company over the past number of years. The
workers feel that an independent assessor would not find
grounds for downgrading their current work. The Court is
asked to find in favour of the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is more than adequate evidence to justify the
regrading of the workers concerned. The implementation of the
automated processes has greatly simplified the work involved
(details supplied to Court).
2. The Company made every effort to arrive at an amicable
solution in accordance with good industrial relations
practice. The fact that the proposals emanating from two
conciliation conferences were recommended for acceptance bears
out this point. In view of the fact that the workers
concerned did not assist with the training process, the
Company is of the view that the proposal from the December,
1988 conference should not now be reinstated.
3. The re-grading of the workers concerned must be treated
like any other ongoing change. The Company has demonstrated
its willingness to negotiate some compensatory package, but it
is not prepared to maintain the workers on their previous
grade.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties and having
taken account of circumstances at the time of the re-organisation
of the Moulding Department, and since, the Court recommends that
the three claimants who were made the earlier offer of #753, #770,
#857 should be paid #900, #925 and #1,000 respectively in full and
final settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
29th September, 1989 ----------------
P.F./U.S. Chairman