Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91611 Case Number: LCR13572 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: APPLIED MAGNETICS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for a change in working conditions arising from the introduction by the Company of a "clean room" facility.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions by the parties and the
subsequent correspondence received from them, the Court has
come to the conclusion that the introduction of a "clean room"
facility was an essential requirement by the Company in its
efforts to retain a satisfactory position within a highly
competitive industry. The Court would consider it unreasonable
to impose any extra on-going cost on the Company as a result of
its introduction. It does however consider that it did impose
an element of change and unforeseen expense on those workers
who were involved prior to its introduction, as distinct from
those who commenced employment from a later date.
In an effort to resolve the issue, and while having regard to
the terms of the P.E.S.P., the Court recommends that those
workers who were involved prior and up to the introduction of
the facility, be paid a sum of £200 in settlement of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91611 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13572
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: APPLIED MAGNETICS IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for a change in
working conditions arising from the introduction by the Company
of a "clean room" facility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1980 and employs
approximately 80 people. Initially the Company manufactured
digital tape heads for the American computer industry but due
to market forces has moved towards the sub assembly,
maintenance and refurbishment of smaller and more modern
computer disc heads. In 1987 the Company introduced
"semi-clean room" conditions which required operatives to work
under air hoods and wear laboratory coats. In 1990 the Company
introduced "clean room" conditions. A "clean room" is an
enclosed area employing control over the particles in the air
with temperature, humidity, and pressure control as required.
The production workers must observe high personal hygiene
standards and wear a clean room uniform consisting of hood,
overalls, booties and gloves. A facemask and hair net are also
required. The Union claims that the introduction of "clean
room" conditions has changed the conditions of employment of
the workers concerned in terms of the physical and skill
requirements of the job. Consequently the Union is claiming
that some form of allowance or compensation should be paid by
the Company. The Company rejects the claim. No agreement was
reached at local level discussions and the matter was referred
on 24th June, 1991 to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 14th October, 1991 at which
no agreement was reached. The matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 15th November, 1991 in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 14th January, 1992 (the earliest
date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of "clean room" conditions has
changed the conditions of employment of the workers
concerned beyond recognition. Such changes in skills,
responsibility and conditions of employment entitle the
workers to some form of compensation or allowance.
3. 2. There is a Company/Union agreement which covers the
44 workers concerned. The agreement and rates of pay were
negotiated before the introduction of "clean room"
conditions. The agreement is reviewed annually and the
Union understood that it's claim for compensation in
respect of the introduction of the "clean room" would not
be ruled out by the 1991 version of the agreement. For
the Company to claim that the introduction of a "clean
room" is covered by the flexibility clause in the
comprehensive agreement is grossly unfair.
3. 3. Traditionally when the workers reported for work they
changed from their outside clothes to a white shop coat
and commenced work at their bench. With the introduction
of the "clean room" operation they must wear protective
clothing which must be removed when leaving. The set of
practices governing "clean room" conditions involve the
workers in additional expense in respect of clothing,
footwear, personal hygiene, grooming, etc. (details
supplied to the Court). The wearing of jewellery is not
permitted and this causes security problems. By imposing
such cost increasing practices on the workers the Company
is not complying with the terms of the P.E.S.P.
3. 4. The change from disc-head bench-work to clean room
midget work has required the workers to learn new quality
control methods and attain higher skill levels. Some
workers have been sent on training courses and are passing
their new knowledge and skills to the remaining workers.
The Company should compensate the workers for their moving
higher up the skills ladder.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's primary position is that the Union's
claim is cost increasing and is prohibited by the terms
of the P.E.S.P. Even if the claim were not prohibited by
the P.E.S.P. there are no grounds to justify any
concession of the claim.
2. The development of the "clean room" operation is a
necessary response to customer demands. There has been a
trend towards the development of "clean room" operations
within the Company since 1987. The Company/Union
comprehensive agreements since 1986 specifically state
that such changes may occur and that workers are expected
to be flexible and co-operative. This agreement was
regularly adjusted, most recently in 1991, and the Union
is fully aware of the need for the Company to keep pace
with the on-going technical developments of the product
and customer requirements.
3. The Company acknowledges that there may be some
restrictions involved in "clean room" working but it has
attempted to explain the rationale for these standards and
to minimise the impact of these restrictions on the
workers. The majority of workers presently working in the
"clean room" would have been made aware of these
requirements when being interviewed, in addition to being
covered, as are all workers, by the appropriate clauses in
the Company's Comprehensive Agreement.
4. There has been no significant increase in the skills
required of workers operating within the "clean room"
environment. In the past, when the Company dealt with a
larger product, workers were able to apply their skills in
an open environment. Today the workers must apply these
similar skills to a smaller product using microscopes in a
controlled environment.
5. The Company operates in an extremely labour cost
sensitive market. The Company's labour costs are usually
in the order of 60% to 80% of contract costs. The Union's
claim for increased compensation could have a huge impact
on the Company's ability to tender competitively for
contracts because of its cost increasing implications. It
would seriously undermine the Company's long term
viability.
6. The standards applied to the current "clean room"
operation are similar to those applied by other Companies.
As far as the Company is aware no other Company has paid
for the introduction or development of "clean room"
working. Any concession of the Union's claim would have
repercussive effects for other companies who require or
operate "clean room" facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions by the parties and the
subsequent correspondence received from them, the Court has
come to the conclusion that the introduction of a "clean room"
facility was an essential requirement by the Company in its
efforts to retain a satisfactory position within a highly
competitive industry. The Court would consider it unreasonable
to impose any extra on-going cost on the Company as a result of
its introduction. It does however consider that it did impose
an element of change and unforeseen expense on those workers
who were involved prior to its introduction, as distinct from
those who commenced employment from a later date.
In an effort to resolve the issue, and while having regard to
the terms of the P.E.S.P., the Court recommends that those
workers who were involved prior and up to the introduction of
the facility, be paid a sum of £200 in settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
27th February, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.