Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90397 Case Number: LCR13054 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 920 production workers concerning their payment at a higher grade when they are involved in training new employees.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the 1976 and 1977 agreements on
operative training are still extant and that established practice
in the intervening years confirms this view. The Court does not
regard the arrangements of 1986 and particularly those of 1990
which were brought about by force majeur, as having established a
precedent for change. Accordingly, the Court does not find
grounds to recommend any compensatory arrangement for
co-operation with operative training.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90397 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13054
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 920 production
workers concerning their payment at a higher grade when they are
involved in training new employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. Production workers are graded in ascending order from Grade B
to Grade G. Under the 1981 House Agreement workers are paid the
rate for higher grade duties provided they perform those duties
for at least 20 hours per week. The Unions claim that when
existing grades C and D workers are required to train-in new
workers with no teacher/operator being present, they should be
paid as teacher/operator which is graded as Grade E. The Unions
also claim that workers in Grades F and G, at which level
teacher/operators do not operate, should be granted monetary
recognition when required to train new workers for more than 20
hours per week. The Company rejected the claim on the grounds
that the terms of the 1976/77 House Agreements committed the
workers to co-operate in the training of new workers. As
agreement could not be reached locally the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 2nd May, 1990. No
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 28th
June, 1990, and the matter was referred on 5th July, 1990, to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 5th September, 1990, (the earliest
date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Claims for the consideration of the co-operation given
in the training of new workers have a long history in the
Company. In 1986, the Company agreed to special arrangements
for the training of a 22 man weekend shift in the 'Wet-End"
Section of the Eclairs Department. The new workers were
trained by the existing operators on weekend overtime. The
same arrangement was made again this year and was extended to
a further 45 workers in the "Dry-End" Section.
3. 2. The Unions believe that those workers involved in
training up to Grade E should be paid at that grade i.e. the
teacher/operator grade. For those engaged in training of
grades above Grade E, they should be paid at a grade above
their existing grade or its equivalent. If the Company had
applied this in the Eclair Department it would have cost less
than the cost of the training on overtime worked there.
3. Under the 1976/77 House Agreements the existing workers
agreed to co-operate with training. This did not mean that
the existing workers would be responsible for in-depth
training. The Company which has a responsibility for
training, is placing greater responsibility for training on
the workers than was previously the case. The Unions also
believe that the 1976/77 House Agreements have been overtaken
by the events in 1986 and this year.
4. It is not unusual for the Company to employ up to 100
new workers at one time. However, the Company, by reducing
the number of teacher/operators available by the non-filling
of a Training Officer vacancy and through the discontinuation
of induction courses for new employees, has compounded a
problem which can only be resolved equitably by concession of
the Unions' claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1976/77 House Agreements provide for co-operation by
existing staff with the training of new workers. The
involvement with training is an integral part of each and
every production worker's job.
2. The Unions' claim is based on the provision in the 1981
House Agreement which allows a worker be paid at a higher
grade for higher grade work performed for a minimum of 20
hours per week. This presupposes that a person actually
performs the duties of the higher grade job. In practice, the
workers involved in the training of others, do not carry out
the teacher/operator duties associated with that Grade E
position. If the Company were to pay workers at a higher
grade when they are not performing the duties of the higher
grade it would lead to the dismantling of the grading
structures.
3. Involvement in training is an integral part of Grade F
and G jobs. While no teachers are provided for such training,
the manager in the area has ultimate responsibility to ensure
that people are properly trained. To concede the Unions'
claim appears to fly in the face of the logic used in seeking
Grade E rate for workers up to Grade D, viz, the F and G
Grades, where they apply are already more highly graded than
the grade appropriate to teacher/operators. This would also
lead to the dismantling of the grading structure. To make
additional payments on top of Grade G would have a far more
immediate effect on the present grading structure.
4. 4. The Company is operating at an acknowledged
uncompetitive position vis-a-vis its main competitors.
Against this background concession of the Unions' claim would
be prohibitive both from a payments and administration cost
point of view. Concession of the claim would also have
serious implications for recruitment of new workers and open
job advertisement within the system (details provided to the
Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that the 1976 and 1977 agreements on
operative training are still extant and that established practice
in the intervening years confirms this view. The Court does not
regard the arrangements of 1986 and particularly those of 1990
which were brought about by force majeur, as having established a
precedent for change. Accordingly, the Court does not find
grounds to recommend any compensatory arrangement for
co-operation with operative training.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
18th October, 1990 ----------------
B.O'N.U.S. Chairman