Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90676 Case Number: LCR13144 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PRETTY POLLY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for an increase in the wage level of workers in the Quality Control Department, in line with that agreed for workers in the Finishing Department.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written.
It is the view of the Court that the #12 per week applied to staff
operating Linked Finishing Equipment should not be applied to the
Quality Assurance Department personnel concerned in this claim
pending the completion of the link installation.
The Court notes that a study of the Quality Control function
established that there has been an increase in the workload of
certain job functions. The Court also notes the Company is quite
agreeable to making such changes as are necessary to restore the
work level to that provided in the Quality Assurance Agreement.
Accordingly the Court recommends the Company make arrangements to
reduce the workload in line with the Quality Assurance Agreement.
In the event the necessary changes have not been completed on or
before 31st January, 1991, the Court will be prepared to
reconsider the matter.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90676 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13144
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PRETTY POLLY
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an increase in the wage level of
workers in the Quality Control Department, in line with that
agreed for workers in the Finishing Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been in operation for 22 years. It employs in
excess of 450 personnel in the manufacture of ladies hosiery,
predominantly for export to the United Kingdom. In 1988, an
agreement on the introduction of Finishing Linking Equipment
provided for an increase of #12 per week on the gross 2 shift wage
of workers employed in the Finishing Department. The Union later
claimed that as in previous practices and because of an extra
workload resulting from greater emphasis on quality, the increase
should be extended to the Company's Quality Assurance Department.
Following local discussions the claim was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on 30th November, 1989.
It was the subject of conciliation conferences on the 2nd
February, and on the 13th September, 1990. The conciliation
conference of 2nd February, 1990, was adjourned so as to allow for
a work measurement in the Quality Assurance Department. The work
study showed that the workload had increased beyond agreed levels
in that Department. At the conciliation conference on 13th
September, 1990 Management were prepared to rectify the increased
workload but they rejected totally the idea of wage relativity
with the Finishing Department/Finishing Linkage Equipment. No
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to a full Labour
Court hearing. The Court investigated the dispute in Killarney on
5th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers in the Quality Assurance Department are seeking an
increase in pay, consistent with past practices when
rationalisation took place in the Company's Finishing
Department. The 1988 Agreement which provided for a #12
weekly increase for workers in the Finishing Department,
resulted in a substantial number of redundancies there. The
Union is seeking a similar pay increase for workers in the
Quality Assurance Department as they now have a considerably
increased workload. The Company, at one stage intimated that
Quality Control personnel would benefit by a #12.00 wage
increase when another stage of the Finishing Linking Equipment
was finalised. However, it is now two years since the
Agreement was negotiated and workers are impatient. Their
workload increased in 1989, with the introduction of the BS
5750 Quality System and again in 1990, with the introduction
of the 1S0 9002 System. The introduction of the BS 5750
system entails quite a number of quality audits and is
designed for the British Market. The 1S0 9002 system which
has also resulted in an increased workload is designed for the
international market.
2. During the course of negotiations the Company's Work Study
Officer investigated the Quality Assurance Department's
increased workload claim. The findings issued (supplied to
the Court) clearly show that the level of work there has
substantially increased - from 7% to 34%. The increases
mentioned in the report were entirely due to the BS 5750
system. The report did not refer the 1S0 9002 system which
resulted in further workload increases. Because of this the
Union believes that the workers concerned are fully entitled
to and justified in pursuing the #12 wage increase.
3. The Company reacted to the increased workload in the
Quality Assurance Department by volunteering to have it
reduced to agreed levels. Workers are prepared to continue
undertaking current workloads. They are endeavouring to
increase their take home pay rather than reduce their amount
of work. The Court is asked to recommend concession of the
claim with considerable retrospection as the increased
workload has existed for quite some time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The March 1986 Quality Assurance Agreement did not
establish a formal wage relationship between the Finishing
Department and the Quality Assurance Department. Since the
Company's inception Quality Assurance has been a separate
Department reporting to the Quality Assurance Manager. There
are three production Departments within the Company. The fact
that the majority of Quality personnel operate within the
Finishing Department is of no consequence as all Quality
personnel are interchangeable and any Quality person can be
assigned to any check operation.
2. The 1988 Agreement on the Introduction of Finishing
Linking Equipment will involve a consequential reduction in
the total number of personnel employed in the Finishing
Department. For personnel operating the new equipment and for
a small number of personnel on down-stream operations within
the Finishing Department, it was agreed that the operation of
the linked equipment would be at a wage level of #12 per week
higher than the wage level on unlinked equipment. To date
phase 1 of the link installation has been completed but phase
2 has been postponed indefinitely because of technical
difficulties. Consequently, there has been no wage increase
for personnel on the operation yet to be linked (over half of
the total number in the Finishing Department). The wage
increase is not applicable to anyone outside of the Finishing
Department.
3. Quality Assurance personnel have always been responsible
for checking goods in accordance with defined specifications
at various stages of manufacture, and for accurately recording
the results. The formalisation of the Quality Management
System for system registration requirements, did not increase
the level of their responsibility. Some documentation and
administrative changes were required as a result of the
formalisation of the Quality Management System. The Union
claims that these and other changes increased the workload of
Quality Assurance personnel. Under the 1986 Quality Assurance
Agreement a high day-rate performance level of approximately
85% B.S.I. has been established. The Company's Industrial
Engineering Department investigated the workload issue and
found that some tasks were, as a result of a number of
factors, including the 39-Hour Week and the formalisation of
the Quality Management System, etc. marginally increased
beyond the level agreed in 1986. The Company is quite
agreeable to making method, frequency, or allocation changes
to reduce the workload to the 85% level.
4. The claim is contrary to both the 'no cost increasing
claims' clause and the 'co-operation with on-going change'
clause of the current wage agreement. If the 'co-operation
with on-going change' clause is to have any meaning it must
cover the type of change required to obtain Registration of
the Quality Management System.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written.
It is the view of the Court that the #12 per week applied to staff
operating Linked Finishing Equipment should not be applied to the
Quality Assurance Department personnel concerned in this claim
pending the completion of the link installation.
The Court notes that a study of the Quality Control function
established that there has been an increase in the workload of
certain job functions. The Court also notes the Company is quite
agreeable to making such changes as are necessary to restore the
work level to that provided in the Quality Assurance Agreement.
Accordingly the Court recommends the Company make arrangements to
reduce the workload in line with the Quality Assurance Agreement.
In the event the necessary changes have not been completed on or
before 31st January, 1991, the Court will be prepared to
reconsider the matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
10th January, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.McG./J.C.