Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/90/691 Case Number: AD9119 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 135/90 concerning a training allowance.
Recommendation:
I recommend the Union accepts that the workers in Grade C are
not entitled to benefit from the training premium (specified
in Clause 9.4.) with immediate effect and the Company
concede, on a goodwill basis, the payment to any Setters who
have carried out temporary training assignments while on
Grade C, only to the present date.
The Union rejected this recommendation and by letter dated 28
November, 1990 they appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was
held on 19 February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union never agreed that grade C rate included an
element for training duties nor did the Company ever advise
that this was the case. The Company argue that grade C
(which up to recently was a leader grade) never attracted the
training premium. It is worth noting that the setter grade
always attracted the payment when it was appropriate. The
Company conceded in the 1989 Procedures Agreement that grade
B occupants would be eligible for promotion to grade C and
that present grade C occupants would evacuate the grade over
a three year period. The Company never at any stage
indicated that entitlements of the grade B workers would be
lessened by the upgrading. It is now the position that grade
C is a setter grade and on the basis of clause 9.4, a
training allowance was always paid to machine setters when
the conditions so warranted.
2. The Rights Commissioner while appreciating the logic
behind the claim by the Union, based his decision on his
impression that there is no overlap between grades B and C
whereas there is between A, B and between C and D. This
observation is incorrect and in fact there is now a direct
connection between B and C as both are setter grades whereas
in the past C was a promotional leader grade. Since 1989 C
became a setter grade opened up to grade B and one can move
automatically from B to C based on service, whereas movement
from A to B depends on promotion. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is based on a misreading of the now direct
connection between grades B and C. The Court are asked to
sustain the appeal and recommend payment of the training
allowance on an ongoing basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the 1989 procedures agreement review, the Company
proposed that occupants of grade B would be eligible for
promotion to grade C and that group leaders in grade C
presently would evacuate over a 3 year period. This
promotion for setters involved a significant increase of 12%
in pay progression. At the time of the agreement the Union
did not claim nor was it agreed that such promotees would be
paid a temporary training supplement related to grade D. It
is the Company's view that the new scale available to
promoted grade B personnel is more than adequate compensation
for all the duties involved including any and very occasional
temporary training for a new recruit. The temporary
training payment has never before been paid to any occupants
of grade C.
2. Goodwill has been shown to employee's by opening up
grade C and the flexibility of continuing to provide such
basic training support to new recruits is an intrinsic
element of the justification for opening up the grade in the
first place. The Company has good conditions of employment
and pay rates and flexibility of operations can be diluted by
traditional supplementary payments, allowances etc.
Extending such an occasional supplementary training payment
further up the organisational ladder is contrary to the
spirit of the recent agreement with the Union. All companies
in the industry do not compensate for occasional support
training (details supplied to the Court) and so common
practice does not justify the payment being extended. The
Company is willing to accept the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
DECISION:
5. In the circumstances the Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioners recommendation is reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly does not uphold the Union appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90691 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1991
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW 135/90 concerning a training allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fujitsu Group
of Japan and employs 230 workers at its plant in Tallaght.
Approximately 160 are members of the Union's engineering
electronics branch with whom the Company has had a comprehensive
procedures agreement since commencement of operations.
There is a graded pay structure in operation.
Grade Category No's
A General process workers 73
B Setter Testers 44
C Group leaders 1
(Incoming setters etc.) (11)
D Team Leaders 13
The dispute concerns clause 9.4 of the Union/Company agreement
which states:
"Trainers on temporary assignment to teach skills and
knowledge to trainees, will be paid at the appropriate
grade point above their existing grade point, for the
duration of the temporary training assignment".
When a new recruit commences in the Company, he is generally
assigned to a work group and a member of the work group is
directed to support him. In December, 1989 the worker a grade C
setter trained some new operatives over a 4 week period. The
Union claims that the worker who was on point 3 of the C scale
should have been paid at point 1 of D scale (a difference of #8)
for the duration of the period he was acting as a trainer. The
Company rejected the claim on the basis that the training
allowance was not appropriate to grade C and that a temporary
training payment had never before been made to any occupants of
grade C.
3. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner having
investigated the dispute on 8 October, 1990 issued the following
findings and recommendation on 23 October, 1990.
FINDINGS
I am mindful of the apparent logic behind this claim by the
Union. The Company did not explicitly restrict the operation
of 9.4 to Grades A and B. The Company obviously values the
importance of experienced operators in a training role.
However, I have noted the terms of the different scales.
There is no doubt that progression to Grade C is a
significant move. There is no overlap between B and C,
whereas there is between A, B, and C and D. In these
circumstances and considering all of the arguments I consider
that Grade C should not attract the training premium.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the Union accepts that the workers in Grade C are
not entitled to benefit from the training premium (specified
in Clause 9.4.) with immediate effect and the Company
concede, on a goodwill basis, the payment to any Setters who
have carried out temporary training assignments while on
Grade C, only to the present date.
The Union rejected this recommendation and by letter dated 28
November, 1990 they appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was
held on 19 February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union never agreed that grade C rate included an
element for training duties nor did the Company ever advise
that this was the case. The Company argue that grade C
(which up to recently was a leader grade) never attracted the
training premium. It is worth noting that the setter grade
always attracted the payment when it was appropriate. The
Company conceded in the 1989 Procedures Agreement that grade
B occupants would be eligible for promotion to grade C and
that present grade C occupants would evacuate the grade over
a three year period. The Company never at any stage
indicated that entitlements of the grade B workers would be
lessened by the upgrading. It is now the position that grade
C is a setter grade and on the basis of clause 9.4, a
training allowance was always paid to machine setters when
the conditions so warranted.
2. The Rights Commissioner while appreciating the logic
behind the claim by the Union, based his decision on his
impression that there is no overlap between grades B and C
whereas there is between A, B and between C and D. This
observation is incorrect and in fact there is now a direct
connection between B and C as both are setter grades whereas
in the past C was a promotional leader grade. Since 1989 C
became a setter grade opened up to grade B and one can move
automatically from B to C based on service, whereas movement
from A to B depends on promotion. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is based on a misreading of the now direct
connection between grades B and C. The Court are asked to
sustain the appeal and recommend payment of the training
allowance on an ongoing basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the 1989 procedures agreement review, the Company
proposed that occupants of grade B would be eligible for
promotion to grade C and that group leaders in grade C
presently would evacuate over a 3 year period. This
promotion for setters involved a significant increase of 12%
in pay progression. At the time of the agreement the Union
did not claim nor was it agreed that such promotees would be
paid a temporary training supplement related to grade D. It
is the Company's view that the new scale available to
promoted grade B personnel is more than adequate compensation
for all the duties involved including any and very occasional
temporary training for a new recruit. The temporary
training payment has never before been paid to any occupants
of grade C.
2. Goodwill has been shown to employee's by opening up
grade C and the flexibility of continuing to provide such
basic training support to new recruits is an intrinsic
element of the justification for opening up the grade in the
first place. The Company has good conditions of employment
and pay rates and flexibility of operations can be diluted by
traditional supplementary payments, allowances etc.
Extending such an occasional supplementary training payment
further up the organisational ladder is contrary to the
spirit of the recent agreement with the Union. All companies
in the industry do not compensate for occasional support
training (details supplied to the Court) and so common
practice does not justify the payment being extended. The
Company is willing to accept the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
DECISION:
5. In the circumstances the Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioners recommendation is reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly does not uphold the Union appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th March, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman