Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90720 Case Number: AD917 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH BISCUITS LTD - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION;BAKERY AND FOODWORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights commissioner's Recommendation No. ST324/90 concerning the grading of 13 Quality Control Inspectors.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the Company's offer is reasonable and should be
accepted. The Court accordingly upholds the Company's appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90720 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD791
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH BISCUITS LTD
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION
BAKERY AND FOODWORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST324/90 concerning the grading of 13 Quality
Control Inspectors.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are 6 grades in operation at the Company which
manufactures confectionery products. The 13 workers are presently
graded at grade 4 which attracts an allowance of #19.80. In early
1990 a regrading was sought by the workers to grade 6. An
internal job evaluation review took place. As a result, a
regrading to grade 5 which attracts an allowance of #23.95 was
substantiated. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
having investigated the dispute on 23 October, 1990 issued the
following recommendation on 21 November, 1990.
"It seems to be accepted by the parties that this group have
been neglected and overlooked in the past few years.
The Company has recognised there is some merit in their
claim. However a two grade jump is not acceptable to the
Company on several grounds including creating a dangerous
precedent.
In these circumstances I recommend that the claimants accept
grade 5 effective from the date of offer and that they will
proceed to grade 6 on the anniversary date on the
understanding that they will continue to co-operate fully
with all new technology advances and new systems".
The Company rejected this Recommendation and by letter dated the
10th December they appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was
held on 16 January, 1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company does not accept the Rights Commissioner's
statement in his recommendation that the workers had been
neglected and over looked in the past few years. In the most
recent Productivity Agreement the role and function of the
quality control staff was examined for the purposes of the
agreement. They received all income benefits in line with
other groups even though no specific demands were placed on
them at the time unlike other categories. In addition no
significant alteration in work content has occurred since.
2. The Company feel that a two grade jump such as
recommended would have a knock-on effect. Any regrading must
be decided on the specific merits of the claim. The most
fundamental objection which the Company has is to the format
of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation. He granted an
immediate increase to grade 5 which had already been conceded
by the Company and in addition however he granted movement to
grade 6 on the anniversary date on the understanding that
there will be continued co-operation with new technology.
The Company has however an explicit agreement on new
technology and systems which was agreed and paid for in March
1989. Reference to such co-operation here is therefore
superfluous.
3. The Company believes that the proposed regrading to
grade 5 more than adequately provides for the adjustment in
job duties. There is no grounds for a further change in 12
months time as there is no plan for substantial changes in
the quality control job other than the normal evolution as
provided for in the Productivity Agreement. (Details
supplied to the Court).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned sought a review of their grading
structure which they felt was not in keeping with what the
job deserved or merited. Quality is rightly prioritised
within the Company and the position of the inspector is an
important function in securing the highest possible quality
of Company product. The work is wide ranging involving
maximum flexibility of assignment, throughout the site if
necessary. Cover is operated on a non replacement basis.
Ongoing changing of production requirements have had a major
impact on the inspectors' duties, insofar as they are obliged
to check and confirm that increasingly complex areas such as
export labeling is correct for very important export work and
production runs.
2. The Company's argument that this claim will have
repercussive effects within the Company is a cliche as other
grades are aware and supportive of the workers' claim.
Indeed the Company have already accepted some of our
arguments but have only conceded one grade rather than the
top grade which was sought and merited. The Productivity
Agreement was a wide ranging agreement involving many factors
for different grades. This is a specific claim on behalf of
a group of long serving workers who are seeking equal grading
with other workers with whom they operate and for whom they
examine work quality.
3. The Rights Commissioner has previously examined the
merits of this case with oral and written submissions. The
workers believe that their position is both fair and
reasonable and that the Rights Commissioner took into account
all factors of the case involving both past performance and
future commitments.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the Company's offer is reasonable and should be
accepted. The Court accordingly upholds the Company's appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24 January, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman