Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90408 Case Number: LCR13030 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRAUN IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for an increase in setters rate of pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties.
It is the view of the Court that if good industrial relations are
to be maintained the issue in dispute must be addressed as quickly
as possible.
The Court recognises however if this is to be done in a way that
is equitable to all of the staff it should be addressed within a
system of job evaluation acceptable to the workers and management.
Accordingly the Court recommends the Union and the Company resume
discussions immediately in respect of the proposals for a system
of job evaluation put forward by the Union. The parties should
seek to complete these discussions and put in place an acceptable
system of job evaluation before 31st January, 1991 at the latest.
They should then as a matter of urgency use that new system to
deal with the claim of the setters
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90408 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13030
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BRAUN IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an increase in setters rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1974, as a manufacturing and
assembly plant. It produces personal care appliances for the
export market, employing approximately 1,300 workers. The Company
operates two job evaluation systems, one to cater for industrial
positions (86% of workforce) and one to cater for staff positions
(7% of workforce). Management are covered by a separate system.
The position of craftsperson is evaluated at grade 10 and comes
within the scope of the staff evaluation system while setters are
deemed to be grade 9 and come within the scope of the industrial
evaluation system. (Management claim that setters were evaluated
at grade 9 in error. Their appropriate structure is grade 8.
However, following Union representation they now recruit setters
at grade 9 level). A dispute arose in 1988, when the Union
claimed that the industrial job evaluation system did not have the
scope to deal adequately with the job description of setter and
its ongoing changes. The Union claimed that setters were the only
group of semi-skilled workers in the plant. They have an
approximate 60-74% differential existing between themselves and
craftsmen. The Company position was that all categories of jobs
are evaluated under their respective agreed systems which have
proved workable and satisfactory over the years. The dispute was
the subject of a Labour Court hearing on 3rd April, 1989. In
recommendation No. 12338, the Court recommended as follows:-
"Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that both parties should as a matter of
urgency discuss with the Irish Productivity Centre, the
Centre's suggested amendments to the Industrial Job
Evaluation Scheme. At these discussions, the trade union
side should be afforded an opportunity of putting forward
their views on the proposed amendments. The Court notes that
a Comprehensive Review of the Scheme is due to take place
later in the month. In this connection the Court recommends
that the trade union should have an input into this Review as
also should have the Irish Productivity Centre."
Following the issue of the recommendation both parties met with
the Irish Productivity Centre and a date of December, 1989 was
agreed for the completion of the review. However, proposals
submitted were unacceptable. Local discussions continued but
failed to resolve anything. As the issue of setters rate of pay
was still in dispute the Union requested a further Court hearing
on 15th June, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 11th
September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company, having rejected the Irish Productivity
Centre's proposals, advised that they would draw up a revised
job evaluation scheme. Later they advised that they were
unable to put a new scheme together, referring to knock-on
effects if the claim for an increased rate of pay for setters
were successful. A suggestion to have setters evaluated,
using the craftsmen/staff evaluation scheme was rejected by
the Company.
2. The position of setters has worsened since the Court
investigated the dispute in 1989. There is now a situation
where a technician and a setter work on the same line (Ratio
Line) on opposite shifts. A setter maintains the line for a
complete shift. Both the setter and technician have the same
responsibility and work but a setter can only earn a maximum
of #10,172 per annum, while a technician can earn a maximum of
#17,795 per annum. A similar situation occurs on the Meto-For
line. Also, from time to time setters stand in for a
supervisor, which is a staff grade 12 position.
3. In February, 1990, the Union submitted to the Company,
draft proposals on a revised job evaluation system. The
Company has not responded to these proposals and the Irish
Productivity Centre has not been asked to look at them. As
there is no movement on agreeing a revised job evaluation
scheme for all staff, the Court is asked to recommend that
setters be given access to the craftsmen/staff job evaluation
scheme. This will allow for a proper measurement of their
work and it will have no knock-on effects.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for an increase in setters rate of pay is
without foundation. The Company operates on a well ordered
and agreed system of pay determination based on job
evaluation. The system operates on two levels, one industrial
covering 1,100 workers including 24 setters. The second level
i.e. staff, covers 85 workers with an amendment to cover 40
craft workers. For operational reasons industrial and staff
workers operate on the same line occasionally, for a specific
reason or period of time. External comparison is not the
basis for pay determination used for individual positions.
The Company accepted Union arguments on this in relation to
all industrial graded employees and in response paid increases
considerably in excess of the terms of the P.N.R.
2. Setters have, over the life of the job evaluation system
benefited considerably from its operation progressing from
Grade 6. They are currently paid Grade 9 on a red circle
basis. Because of an error and subsequent red circling they
benefit by an amount of #12.94 per week in excess of their
proper entitlement under the system.
3. Following the recommendation of April, 1989, the Company
had several meetings with the Irish Productivity Centre and
the Union Negotiating Committee. Acknowledging that a
comprehensive review was necessary both parties agreed not to
spend time on a separate system for setters but to move
directly into the comprehensive review with an objective of
completing the exercise by December, 1989. The Irish
Productivity Centre produced proposals after an investigation
which after several meetings and re-drafts both sides had
difficulty with. At this stage the Company received proposals
from the Union which could form the basis for progress.
However, following receipt of these, the Union Engineer became
unavailable and discussions ceased. The Company is prepared
to discuss the proposals further with a view to agreeing an
acceptable job evaluation system. Employing 1,300 workers,
within excess of 530 job descriptions in three grades covering
a total of 900 workers, makes developing a new system a very
large and complex task, the difficulty of which was
underestimated. With two systems existing the task is further
complicated. Because of the scale of the operation other
difficulties arise in that the consequences of adopting an
inappropriate scheme could have serious implications from both
financial and operational considerations.
4. Concession of the setters claim would totally undermine
agreed operating procedures which have covered over 1,100
workers for 12 years. Setters have benefited within the
system. If the grading error did not occur they would
presently have 473 points i.e. grade 8. There would remain
Grade 9, from 485 to 534 points, through which they would have
to progress. They have refused to use this part of the system
because they will realise no benefit from it. Rather, they
seek some other route around the system to meet their
objectives.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties.
It is the view of the Court that if good industrial relations are
to be maintained the issue in dispute must be addressed as quickly
as possible.
The Court recognises however if this is to be done in a way that
is equitable to all of the staff it should be addressed within a
system of job evaluation acceptable to the workers and management.
Accordingly the Court recommends the Union and the Company resume
discussions immediately in respect of the proposals for a system
of job evaluation put forward by the Union. The parties should
seek to complete these discussions and put in place an acceptable
system of job evaluation before 31st January, 1991 at the latest.
They should then as a matter of urgency use that new system to
deal with the claim of the setters
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
27th September, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
A.McG./J.C.