Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89517 Case Number: LCR12590 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MOHAWK EUROPA LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union for a training allowance on behalf of workers required to train new employees.
Recommendation:
5. The submissions of the parties oral and written were fully
considered by the Labour Court.
The Court does not find grounds for the payment of a training
allowance and accordingly does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89517 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12590
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MOHAWK EUROPA LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a training allowance on behalf of
workers required to train new employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1963 and employs 135 workers.
It manufactures special cutting tools at Shannon Industrial
Estate. During the period from 1963 to 1985 a practice existed in
the Company whereby experienced operators provided on the job
training for new employees. The Company appointed its first
training officer in 1972. He is responsible for overall training,
and reports to the plant manager. Supervisors also assist in the
training of new workers. In 1985 the training officer was
promoted and the post was left vacant for some time. The workers
concerned were requested to assist with the training of new
employees and subsequently the Union submitted a claim for a
training allowance. In 1986 the post of training officer was
filled but discussions continued on the Union's claim for the
training allowance. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds
that the "operator assisting operator" procedure had existed since
1963 and is a condition of employment. The Union insists that the
workers concerned were entitled to the training allowance and it
should be paid by the Company in situations where experienced
employees train new workers. Local discussions failed to resolve
the issue and the dispute was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 15th May, 1989. A conciliation
conference was held on the 20th June, 1989 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 24th July, 1989. A Court
hearing was held in Limerick on the 26th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the position of training officer was vacant in mid
1985 the Company requested the workers concerned to train new
employees and the Union felt justified in submitting a claim
for training allowance for experienced operatives when they
are called upon to help in the training of inexperienced
workers. In 1986, when the training officer position had been
filled the Company again requested the workers concerned to
train new employees but the Union refused to comply with this
request unless a training allowance was paid. Proposals which
emerged as a result of conciliation meetings in 1987 were
rejected by the Company, and at a subsequent local meeting
between the parties the Company stated that the workers
concerned need not train any person in future.
2. The Union concedes that a practice has been allowed to
happen over a period of years whereby experienced operators
have assisted new workers and provided a certain amount of
training. The Union has given excellent co-operation to the
Company in this area. However it is widespread practice
throughout industry generally that employees who co-operate
and assist in the training of individuals on machine type jobs
receive a plus payment in lieu of such work. The Union
estimates that a sum equal to 10% of the job rate should be
paid to anyone who is required to train another employee for
the duration of the training.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no justification to make any plus payment for a
basic level of co-operation which had been custom and
practice, and an intrinsic part of a job contract for more
than 25 years. The vast range of the products and processes
at the Company involves a significant amount of collaboration
and team effort. In the absence of full co-operation in the
dissemination of information, full efficiency is not possible.
"On the job" training and consultation is the only way that
will work.
2. The Company has a profit share/share participation scheme
which provides real benefits to the workers. The benefits can
be taken as a cash sum or uniquely as shares in the Company.
The shares can be taken tax free provided they are held for at
least five years. This scheme provides for the distribution
of 30% of all profits above a base line figure amongst all
employees.
3. As a Company which competes on international markets it
must continue to strive for improved levels of customer
service and cost effectiveness. The pursuit of restrictive
and cost increasing issues (such as the the Union's claim)
serves only to erode the Company's position in the
international marketplace.
4. The claim for a plus payment for assisting a colleague is
unworkable from a practical stand point. It would be
impossible to monitor. It would become impossible for example
to define at what level of assistance plus payments should
become operative. The existence of such payments would very
much restrict shop floor efficiency. This is effectively a
claim for "an across the board" pay increase. It is not
normal practice that this type of claim should be made in this
industry or this area as generally people help each other to
ensure job security, quantity and efficiency.
5. The rates of pay and conditions of employment in the
Company (details supplied to the Court) are among the highest
in the region and the profit share scheme further increases
earning levels of the workers concerned. The current claim
and withdrawal of co-operation which accompanies it are
proving to be a barrier to employment creation. It represents
an effort by some employees to cease the performance of an
intrinsic element of their job (operator assisting operator)
in an effort to be paid more for it. The Company would
request the Court to reject the claim and recommend a return
to the pre-1985 position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The submissions of the parties oral and written were fully
considered by the Labour Court.
The Court does not find grounds for the payment of a training
allowance and accordingly does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
10th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O.'D/J.C.