Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90437 Case Number: LCR13038 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KILKENNY TEXTILE MILLS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 'bale handlers' for retrospection, change in job title and workload analysis.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the detailed submissions from the
parties. With regard to the Company/Union agreement, copy of
which was submitted by the Union as part of its submission, the
Court supports the Union's contention that Clause 5 of that
agreement should be operated by the Company until such time as
both parties agree an alternative.
The Court recommends that the employees who were re-graded from
grade VI to grade IV in May, 1989 be given the title of
Trucker/Bale Handler.
The Court does not find in favour of the Union's claim that the
above claimants be paid the grade IV rate from a date prior to
May, 1989.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90437 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13038
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KILKENNY TEXTILE MILLS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 'bale handlers' for
retrospection, change in job title and workload analysis.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the spinning of cotton yarn for
terry towelling and related products. The present dispute
concerns seven workers, who are classified as 'bale handlers.'
The grading structure in existence has seven grades, numbered 1 to
7, with grade 1 as the highest grade. Until May, 1989 'bale
handlers' were on grade 6 (currently #136.80 p.w.) changes took
place in the job in May, 1989 and following negotiations it was
agreed that these workers would be placed at grade 4 (currently
(141.00 p.w.) and this was made retrospective to May, 1989. The
Union however is claiming that the job has always been wrongly
classified and that the new grading should be effective from the
date each of the workers commenced in this job. This claim
applies to only three of the workers and the amounts involved are
#1,599, #1,369 and #353 respectively. The Union also claims that
the appropriate title for the workers employed as 'bale handlers'
is 'fork-truck drivers' on the basis that this is their main
activity. The Union also claims that the workload has increased
and that it was unable to act in accordance with Article 5 of the
Company/Union Agreement, (see Appendix A) whereby the Union's
Industrial Engineer would check the time study and workload
analysis of the Company, as no such analysis existed. These
claims were rejected by the Company on the basis that the reason
for the regrading was an increase in responsibility, while the
workload has decreased and that the grade of 'fork-lift driver'
does not exist in the Company and in any event the workers' duties
would not warrant such a classification. On 2nd November, 1989
the matters were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was postponed to allow
for further talks, however no progress was made and a conciliation
conference was held on 15th May, 1990. Agreement was not reached
at this and on 24th July, 1990 the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 11th September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The changes in the workload sought by the Company early in
1989 brought to the attention of all concerned that the work
being performed by workers designated as 'bale handlers' was
in effect the work appropriate to a worker more properly
identified as a fork-truck driver. Consequently, that the
workers concerned should carry the title of fork-truck drivers
and be paid accordingly, while the issue of their workload
should be the subject of the provisions of Article 5 of the
Company/Union agreement (details supplied to the Court).
2. The job title of any worker should accurately reflect the
chief or central component of the job they are performing.
The chief component of the job of the workers concerned and
the task that they are involved in for the vast majority of
the day involves fork-truck driving activities. The
fork-truck drivers are involved in both the goods inwards
(bale handling) and goods outwards (packing) departments of
the Company and the workers employed in these departments
should be titled accordingly, irrespective of the product they
are transporting by use of a fork-truck. The Company in its
own correspondence has acknowledged that the workers are
fork-truck drivers (details supplied to the Court). The fact
that the workers spend the vast majority of the day on
fork-truck drivers activities should be recognised, not only
in order to benefit the workers in this Company but also to
give credence and recognition to the nature of the job, in the
event that any of the workers should seek employment
elsewhere.
3. The claim for retrospective payment applies to only three
of the workers (details supplied to the Court). As the
workers have been performing the duties of a fork-truck driver
since they started in this job, they should be in receipt of
the relevant monetary compensation from that date. In fact,
the time per day that the workers were involved in fork-truck
duties far exceeded the industry norm of 3 hours per day, in
determining the appropriate classification to which a worker
belonged. In addition, the workers' level of responsibility
in the tasks they were performing was commensurate with that
of fork-truck drivers in the goods outward department who were
in receipt of a grade 4 payment. The long overdue and
outstanding correction to the workers wages should now be made
on a retrospective basis.
4. All issues relating to workloads and potential changes
sought by the Company are provided for within the ambit of
Article 5 of the Company/Union agreement. The Article lays
down a specific course of action which is to be undertaken in
the event of a dispute concerning a revised workload. In this
case the Company, on the first occasion, provided outline
information to the Union but subsequent to rather than prior
to the change being implemented. In addition to this
departure from Article 5 they failed to take into account the
advice given by the Union's Industrial Engineer and
accordingly failed to enact the agreed procedure for dealing
with disputed workloads. This would involve the Company's
Industrial Engineer making an initial study (this was not
done), which is then examined by the Union's Industrial
Engineer and failing resolution at this stage it is then
investigated by a qualified independent third party. The
Company has undoubtedly breached Article 5 and should now
comply fully with the Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Until May, 1989 the job of bale handler was placed at
grade 6 and until then this grade had never been disputed.
Certain changes took place in the job in May, 1989 (details
supplied to the Court). Following negotiations the Company
agreed to regrade the job at grade 4 and made the regrading
retrospective to May, 1989 when the changes had taken place
(and when the Union claim was made). The reason for the
regrading was an increase in responsibility and the Company is
of the opinion that the workload has in fact decreased.
Clause 5 of the Agreement has been dormant for a long time and
has not therefore been in use.
2. The primary function of this job is to handle bales. The
workers also carry out general duties as required, in keeping
with the Company/Union agreement. The job also requires the
workers to drive a fork lift truck. The Union appears to be
claiming that the bale handlers are 'fork lift drivers' and
should have been paid as truckers/packers, who have always
been paid at grade 4. However, the truckers/packers are paid
grade 4 because of the final inspection aspect of their
finished product packing "ready for shipment"
responsibilities. There is no job category of fork lift
driver in the Company. There are many workers who are trained
to drive a fork lift truck and who do so in the performance of
their duties (details supplied to the Court). The logic of
the Union's case is that all these categories should be
renamed 'fork truck drivers' and paid the same rate. The
Company's assessment is that bale handlers spend less than
half their day driving a fork truck and on occasions this can
be as little as 1 hour. The same is true for truckers/packers.
The category of 'bale handler' is standard throughout the
industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the detailed submissions from the
parties. With regard to the Company/Union agreement, copy of
which was submitted by the Union as part of its submission, the
Court supports the Union's contention that Clause 5 of that
agreement should be operated by the Company until such time as
both parties agree an alternative.
The Court recommends that the employees who were re-graded from
grade VI to grade IV in May, 1989 be given the title of
Trucker/Bale Handler.
The Court does not find in favour of the Union's claim that the
above claimants be paid the grade IV rate from a date prior to
May, 1989.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
1st October, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.
APPENDIX A
CLAUSE 5 OF COMPANY/UNION AGREEMENT
5. ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENTS
General
The Union recognises that, for the purpose of establishing and
maintaining efficient operation of the Mill and thereby
keeping the Company in a competitive position in the industry,
it is necessary from time to time to make changes, for
example:
(a) Install new and modern machinery
(b) Develop new machines
(c) Develop improvements for machinery
(d) Develop new methods, manufacturing processes and
techniques
(e) Make changes in materials processed or quality or
manufacturing standards
(f) Create new jobs and revise or combine existing jobs
(g) Make time and motion studies and adjust workloads on jobs
(h) Monitor the effects of operating conditions on production
standards.
In relation to Items (f) and (g), prior consultation and
agreement with the employees involved and their internal Union
representatives will take place before any change is decided
on and implemented.
Production Standards
(a) The right of the Company to establish, apply, and
maintain production standards is recognised. The
establishment, application and maintenance of production
standards are three distinct, but related, functions that
must be properly and diligently carried out in order to
keep the business in a competitive position.
(b) In order to ensure fairness to all employees and the
Company, the parties agree that the number of machines
actually assigned, the standard production levels
required and/or the specific job duties assigned shall be
varied up and down as necessary.
Revision
Prior to the proposed effective date of any revision of a
production standard, or machine or job assignment, the Company
will notify the Union and the affected employees of same. The
Company will furnish full information to the Union and advice
given by the Industrial Engineer of the Union will be taken
into consideration. Should there still be disagreement, both
parties agree to resolve the matter according to the following
procedure:
- In the event of any revision being disputed by an
employee or group of employees, the Company's Industrial
Engineer will re-examine the disputed revision.
- If there is still dissatisfaction on the outcome of the
re-examination, the Company will invite the Union's
Industrial Engineer to investigate the disputed revision
and will give their full co-operation in this regard.
- Should the disputed revisions still remain unresolved,
both the Company and the Union will then agree and
jointly arrange to have it investigated by a suitably
qualified independent third party.