Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94144 Case Number: LCR14469 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BAXTER HEALTHCARE S.A. - and - SIX WORKERS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for upgrading for six Laboratory Assistants.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing. While the Court does
not regard the Company grading structure or the grading of
individual jobs as immutable, it notes that agreement to the
present position was confirmed in a renewal of the Company/Union
agreement early this year. Accordingly, the Court does not find
grounds to recommend concession of the Union claim at this time.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94144 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14469
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BAXTER HEALTHCARE S.A.
and
SIX WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for upgrading for six Laboratory Assistants.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a major manufacturer of healthcare
products and was established in 1972. It employs
approximately 650 workers at its plant in Castlebar and 150
workers in Swinford.
2. The dispute concerns six Laboratory Assistants who are
employed in the Micro Laboratory in the Company's plant in
Castlebar. The Union served a claim on behalf of the six
workers for up-grading. The claim is rejected by the Company.
There have been a number of similar type claims before the
Labour Court in the past (LCR's 4458, 7353 and 9039 refer).
LCR No. 12151 deals with a similar claim by the same workers.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 21st
January, 1994. No agreement was reached and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 8th March, 1994 under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Sligo on 18th May, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The role of the workers concerned has changed and
expanded considerably over a number of years. They are
required to carry out five seperate complex tests.
2. LCR14469
2. Much of the work done by the workers (details supplied
to the Court) is work originally done by supervisors and other
management personnel. The increased responsibility being
borne by the workers deserves to be rewarded by an appropriate
upgrading.
3. The Company's argument that the claim is debarred under
the various National Agreements is not valid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The present grading structure has been in existence
since the Company was established in 1972. The structure is
similar to many manufacturers of healthcare products and has
been very successful.
2. The Company has been before the Labour Court previously
regarding a number of similar claims. Following
recommendation No. LCR4458 a Company/Union Agreement was drawn
up which included the following item under Job Classification:
"The current job classifications will remain in
operation and no changes will be made by way of job
evaluation on claims for differentials".
3. The Labour Court found in favour of the Company in LCR's
7353 and 9039. A similar claim to the present one in dispute
was rejected in LCR No. 12151 under the terms of the P.E.S.P.
4. The work being done by the workers concerned is similar
to that of other Laboratory Assistants. Any work changes
would be similiar to those experienced by other workers in the
plant. A concession of the Union's claim would have a serious
knock-on effect leading to higher costs and uncompetiveness.
5. The current Company/Union Agreement was negotiated in
early 1994. It states:-
"There will be no further claims of a cost increasing
nature other than those specifically agreed at formal
negotiations for the period covered by the specific
Agreement".
3. LCR14469
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing. While the Court does
not regard the Company grading structure or the grading of
individual jobs as immutable, it notes that agreement to the
present position was confirmed in a renewal of the Company/Union
agreement early this year. Accordingly, the Court does not find
grounds to recommend concession of the Union claim at this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
10th June, 1994 _______________
C O'N/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.