Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91175 Case Number: LCR13371 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. It is of concern to the Court that this is the third occasion
that this claim has come before the Court since 1989. The delay
in agreeing a system whereby such claims can be resolved within
the context of an agreed overall grading structure is not
conducive to good industrial relations.
The Court does not consider it would be appropriate or helpful to
make a recommendation in relation to the setters claim for a pay
increase in isolation. The Court recommends that both parties
pursue to finality, as a matter of urgency, the introduction of an
agreed, unified job grading system with a built in appeals
mechanism in order that this claim and other similar claims in the
future can be fairly assessed.
The Court is of the view, given the current progress of
negotiations that this matter should be capable of resolution,
given reasonable co-operation and commitment of time and resources
by the parties, within at the maximum a period of six months.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91175 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13371
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
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 and issued a recommendation (No. 13030) as
follows:-
"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."
Following the issue of the recommendation the parties resumed
discussions and proposals for a new job evaluation system emerged.
The Company claims that the cost of introducing the new system
would be #1.2 million per annum and that cost saving measures
would be required. It presented a list of cost saving proposals
which were rejected by the Union. No agreement was reached at
local level discussions and the Union requested a further Court
hearing on the basis that a system had not been put in place
before 31st January, 1991 as recommended in L.C.R. 13030. The
Court investigated the dispute in Carlow on 12th June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite the Union's commitment to resolving the dispute in
line with L.C.R. 13030, Company demands for large cost savings
in return for the implementation of a new job evaluation
scheme prevent a settlement of the dispute. Company demands
are out of proportion to what the Union envisaged and further
progress is impossible.
2. The present job evaluation system has proved inadequate to
deal with pay rates for setters. It has proved impossible to
resolve the dispute through a new scheme. In the meantime the
differential between craftsmen and setters has widened
further. The setters case should be dealt with on its own
merits. The Union is requesting a recommendation which will
support its claim in respect of setters rate of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the issue of L.C.R. 13030 the Company made every
effort to introduce a new agreed job evaluation system by 31st
January, 1991. By March, 1991 the Company had developed
proposals for a new system, based on savings generated. The
issue now for resolution is the amount of savings necessary to
finance the new system.
2. The estimated cost of the new system is #1.2 million per
annum. The Company could not afford to introduce such a
system without some cost savings. The new system must be
self-financing. Savings will have to be introduced in a
controlled manner.
3. Setters have, over the life of the job evaluation system,
benefited considerably from its operation. 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 #13.46
per week in excess of their proper entitlement under the
system. Despite requests from the Company the Union has never
stated any basis on which setters merit further re-evaluation.
The claim for an increase in setters rate of pay is without
foundation.
4. The Company is fully committed to the development and
introduction of the new system. The new system will continue
the ongoing method of comparative evaluation successfully
employed in the Company for 13 years. It will ensure fair and
consistent ranking of positions in a clearly defined and
agreed manner, rewarding changes in responsibility if merited.
The Company requests the Court to allow the process to
continue, to endorse the considerable progress that has been
achieved and to encourage both parties to co-operate in
developing saving that will ensure the full implementation of
the new system to the satisfaction of all concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is of concern to the Court that this is the third occasion
that this claim has come before the Court since 1989. The delay
in agreeing a system whereby such claims can be resolved within
the context of an agreed overall grading structure is not
conducive to good industrial relations.
The Court does not consider it would be appropriate or helpful to
make a recommendation in relation to the setters claim for a pay
increase in isolation. The Court recommends that both parties
pursue to finality, as a matter of urgency, the introduction of an
agreed, unified job grading system with a built in appeals
mechanism in order that this claim and other similar claims in the
future can be fairly assessed.
The Court is of the view, given the current progress of
negotiations that this matter should be capable of resolution,
given reasonable co-operation and commitment of time and resources
by the parties, within at the maximum a period of six months.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
31st July, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.