Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95140 Case Number: LCR15034 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MERCK, SHARP AND DOHME - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for upgrading.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that there have been changes which have affected
the work of the CRAs'. There are, however, no procedures or
criteria in place to objectively evaluate the effects of these
changes.
To ensure that the employees are appropriately placed on the
grading scale commensurate with their duties and responsibilities,
it is the view of the Court that the parties should establish
objective evaluation procedures and criteria as a matter of
urgency, and in any case, in such time as will allow the jobs here
concerned to be evaluated and an appropriate grading agreed before
the expiry of the current Company/Union agreement.
Any improvement which might arise as a consequence of the
evaluation of the work of these employees should be applied with
effect from the date of issue of this recommendation.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95140 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15034
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MERCK, SHARP AND DOHME
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for upgrading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a modular multi-product computer controlled
facility, based in Ballydine, Co. Tipperary. It manufactures
bulk pharmaceutical products on a batch-processing basis. It
employs 272 employees on a four-cycle, seven-day shift
system.
The claim for upgrading is on behalf of 8 Control Room
Attendants (CRAs) who are Grade A operators, the highest
operating grade in the plant. The claim has been ongoing for
a number of years. The Labour Court investigated the claim
in 1988, but rejected it (LCR11751 refers). The Union claims
that, since 1988, the duties and responsibilities of the CRAs
have changed significantly and that the post is now
incorrectly graded. The Company contends that all categories
of workers have experienced change and that the CRAs' jobs
have not changed fundamentally, relative to other grades.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and conciliation conferences took place on 31st March, 1994
and 14th April, 1994, at which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 22nd
February, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place in Clonmel, on 22nd November, 1995, the earliest date
suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The grading structures and categories were negotiated in
1974/75 prior to the establishment of the Plant. The CRAs
(Grade A) were paid the same remuneration as the Laboratory
Technicians, who are now earning up to £100 more per week.
2. In 1993 the Union retained the services of an industrial
engineer to examine the role of CRA. It was his opinion that
the role had changed significantly since the Plant's
inception and would continue to change into the future. The
grading structure should be reviewed as it did not now
reflect the increased duties and responsibilities of the
CRAs.
3. The introduction of the new technologically advanced
Distributive Control System (DCS) in 1994 has increased the
workload and supervisory role of the CRAs (details supplied
to the Court).
4. At conciliation in 1994, management expressed their sympathy
and support for some remuneration increase to CRAs. An offer
was made that would broaden the differential between Grade A
and Grade B1, but it is not considered adequate remuneration.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Control Room Attendants are paid at the Grade A rate,
which is the highest rate of pay for operators. It compares
very favourably with similar positions in other
pharmaceutical companies.
2. The CRAs' duties have not altered fundamentally relative to
other grades in the Plant. The majority of employees have
experienced a number of changes over the years as the
business developed, expanded and modernised.
3. The Labour Court investigated a similar claim in 1988 and,
following an inspection of the Plant, confirmed that CRAs
were graded correctly (LCR11751 refers).
4. The Company has already granted in excess of 4% increases
above the terms of the PCW, under an agreement which is due
to expire in December 1996. Any further increases would not
be justified and would lead to knock-on claims from the other
grades in the Company. It would impact negatively on the
Company's competitiveness and could lead to industrial
unrest.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that there have been changes which have affected
the work of the CRAs'. There are, however, no procedures or
criteria in place to objectively evaluate the effects of these
changes.
To ensure that the employees are appropriately placed on the
grading scale commensurate with their duties and responsibilities,
it is the view of the Court that the parties should establish
objective evaluation procedures and criteria as a matter of
urgency, and in any case, in such time as will allow the jobs here
concerned to be evaluated and an appropriate grading agreed before
the expiry of the current Company/Union agreement.
Any improvement which might arise as a consequence of the
evaluation of the work of these employees should be applied with
effect from the date of issue of this recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
D.G./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.