Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9038 Case Number: LCR12802 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TELECTRON NA FARRAIGE MOIRE TEORANTA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union that the posts of two workers be upgraded to quality control chargehand.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is satisfied that the claim for upgrading by the workers
concerned is not sustainable. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9038 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12802
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TELECTRON NA FARRAIGE MOIRE TEORANTA
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that the posts of two workers be upgraded
to quality control chargehand.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of
telecommunications equipment. Prior to September, 1989 the
workers concerned were employed as incoming inspectors in purchase
material inspection (P.M.I.) which is part of the quality
assurance department. Their duties involved the inspection and
electrical testing of raw materials. They are on the same rate of
pay as quality control inspectors who inspect and electrically
test partly built and finished products. Both groups are
responsible for any documentation associated with their jobs. In
September, 1989 quality control and quality assurance departments
were amalgamated, with the quality control supervisor and
chargehand taking responsibility for the area. The Union served a
claim on the Company that the posts of the two workers concerned
be upgraded to quality control chargehand on the grounds that the
workload had increased and was more of a technical nature than
other quality control staff. The Union wants a job evaluation
carried out with a view to the upgrading of the posts. The
Company rejected the claim on the grounds that it was a cost
increasing claim and was precluded under the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). No agreement could be
reached in local level discussions and the issue was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 6th September,
1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 8th November,
1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 3rd January, 1990. A Court hearing was
held in Letterkenny on the 7th March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the amalgamation, the two departments had
separate structures (details supplied to the Court). The
workers concerned have taken over work in the quality
assurance department from two technically qualified workers
one of whom is still employed in the Company as a senior
technician. All materials which came into this area were
checked by inspectors both mechanically and on occasions
electrically. Since the 25th September, 1989 most electrical
testing has ceased.
2. Since the restructuring, the quality control inspectors
have been trained by the workers concerned on the instructions
of the department supervisor, as the three training
instructors in the plant were unable to do the training. The
quality assurance inspectors imparted their knowledge and know
how to the quality control inspectors without any added
remuneration, bearing in mind that training instructors are in
receipt of higher wages. One of the two workers concerned is
the only person in this area capable of operating a forklift
and must operate in moving materials for numerous inspections.
3. The workers concerned have approximately #20 less in wages
when compared to the wage of quality control chargehand
(details of this job description supplied to the Court). The
jobs performed by the workers concerned, the skills involved,
their area of responsibility and their input into training
merits an upgrading to the level of quality control
chargehand. The workers concerned are prepared to accept a
ruling by an independent assessor following a job evaluation
of the grade proper to them. All relevant technical data can
be made available by the Union for the purpose of this
evaluation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Throughout the discussions between the parties the basis
of the claim of the workers concerned has changed i.e.
pressure of work, paperwork, physically heavier, more
technically demanding, unsupervised. The Company has taken
all reasonable measures, short of upgrading to assist the
workers concerned in the performance of their duties.
2. The Company considers that what really underlines this
dispute is not the nature of the work but rather a pay claim.
The terms of the P.N.R. prohibit such a claim. It has been
established practice within the Company since the introduction
of P.M.I. operators (March, 1984) for their rates of pay to be
equal to quality control inspectors. It is established
practice within the Company's other facilities for
P.M.I./quality assurance and quality control rates to be the
same. This has never been disputed. It is established
practice within the industry for P.M.I./quality assurance
rates and quality control rates to be the same.
3. Given the well established nature of the pay structure the
Company has no doubt that concession of the claim would give
rise to repercussive claims within the Company. This has not
been disputed by the Union.
4. The Company does not accept that the quality control
operators agreed that their work is of a lesser nature than
the P.M.I. staff. The Company does not accept that the work
of the P.M.I. operators is comparable to quality control
chargehands. The Company's pay structure has been in
existence for many years and its equitability has withstood
the test of time. The comparability of quality control and
P.M.I. has never been disputed before this issue arose.
5. Job evaluation is not an established practice within the
Company. Management believes that it would not be possible to
resolve this dispute by comparing the jobs of P.M.I. with
either quality control operators and or quality control
chargehands. A much more comprehensive and expensive
evaluation process would be required. The Company considers
such cost and disruption to be unnecessary in resolving a pay
claim by two workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is satisfied that the claim for upgrading by the workers
concerned is not sustainable. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
26th April, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.