Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95268 Case Number: LCR14824 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ORGANNON (IRELAND) LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's proposal to use general operatives to provide cover for process operatives.
Recommendation:
The Court notes the stated objective of both parties to have a
positive action programme to promote general operatives to the
grade of process operative.
The Court applauds this objective as being a positive step to
eliminate the existing gender balance in the grades. The Court
accordingly recommends that the Company's position be upheld.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95268 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14824
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ORGANNON (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's proposal to use general
operatives to provide cover for process operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals
and employs approximately 250 workers. There are two grades
for operative employees, the general operative grade (68
workers - mostly female) which is the basic grade and the
higher grade of process operative (14 operatives - mostly
male). In the event of cover being required to fill
short-term vacancies arising in the process operative grade
due to illness or annual leave, etc., cover has always been
provided by means of reassignment of process operatives,
sometimes on overtime. Agreement has been reached with the
Union on the training of general operatives for process
operatives' duties in order that temporary vacancies arising
from the higher process operator grade could be filled from
this pool and that any permanent vacancies arising could be
filled initially. While the Union has agreed to the training
of general operatives for process operatives' duties it
claims that general operatives are now used to cover short
term vacancies in the process area previously covered by
process operators on overtime. Management rejected the
claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 5th
April, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 25th April, 1995. The Court investigated
the dispute on the 29th June, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union fully supports the Company's policy of
providing training for general operatives to the process
operative level. The Company must introduce a properly
structured programme for general operatives to train in
the process area. This is the area of progression and
when future vacancies arise they could be filled by
internal promotion. Such an approach by the Company
would demonstrate to the general operatives,
Management's commitment to their progression within the
Company.
2. It is unreasonable that the Company has failed to allay
the concerns of process operators on the loss of some
overtime. The Union's compromise proposal is that a
commitment be given for two weeks to be allocated
specifically to the process operators in each instance
before any retrained general operative would be moved in
to act up in the process area. This would confirm to
the Union that the Company does not intend to use
general operatives to temporarily replace process
operators to the detriment of their earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was never the intention of the Company to reduce
overtime in the process operator area by utilising
general operatives in this manner. The Company
introduced the practice solely to redress a gender
imbalance and afford opportunities to general operatives
to upgrade and acquire new skills.
2. The Company does not propose to upgrade workers for
normal ongoing day to day overtime.
3. The Company cannot agree to the Union's claim that
absences, on annual leave or sick leave for a period of
two weeks, be done by process operatives on overtime.
This is a restrictive practice and would lead to a
diminution of skills for those lower grade operatives
already trained on higher grade work.
4. Overtime as such is not guaranteed and the Company is
not going to enter any agreement which would give such a
guarantee to workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the stated objective of both parties to have a
positive action programme to promote general operatives to the
grade of process operative.
The Court applauds this objective as being a positive step to
eliminate the existing gender balance in the grades. The Court
accordingly recommends that the Company's position be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th July, 1995 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.