Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95398 Case Number: LCR14978 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OHSHIMA ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the upgrading of 6 production/line service operators to the level of "kit prep"/warehouse operators.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
satisfied that the claim is cost-increasing and, therefore,
concession cannot be recommended in the period of the PCW. It
appears that it is also covered by the terms of the Union/Company
Agreement.
The Court considers that it would be beneficial for the parties to
draw up and agree detailed job-descriptions for all categories of
operatives.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95398 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14978
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
OHSHIMA ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the upgrading of 6 production/line service
operators to the level of "kit prep"/warehouse operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1993, is engaged in the
manufacture of printed circuit boards and currently employs
a staff of approximately 225. The claim, which was one of
six issues raised by the Union, was lodged on the 9th
November, 1994. The Union sought the upgrading on the
grounds that the workers' rate of pay did not reflect their
skills and responsibilities. The Union claimed that their
wages should be increased from £146.37 per week to £156.82
per week. The Company rejected the claim, stating that the
claim was cost-increasing and, accordingly, was contrary to
Clause 6 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference followed at which agreement was
not reached on the issue of the upgrading (agreement was,
however, reached on the other five issues referred). The
outstanding matter was referred to the Labour Court, on the
4th July, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its
investigation, in Mullingar, on the 15th of November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers in question perform duties equal to, if not
greater than, those with whom they are being compared
(details supplied to the Court).
2. It is normal practice in industry for workers to receive
additional payments for additional responsibilities.
Included in the additional responsibilities of the six
is the requirement to ensure that components are
available for the line, otherwise it would not run.
This demonstrates additional responsibility and should
be rewarded.
3. The increase in pay would be an incentive to the
claimants, increasing their motivation.
4. A forklift licence and computer literacy appear not to
be imperative in the "kit prep" area as, at present,
only one worker there has a forklift licence, and very
few are computer literate.
5. The present rate of pay of the six is low and a small
increase would not have a major effect on the overall
labour costs of the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a cost-increasing claim and as such is contrary
to Clause 6 of the PCW. Furthermore Clauses 18 and 39
of the Company/Union Agreement state that no
cost-increasing claims will be made for its duration
except those detailed in a national understanding or at
an agreed review date (details supplied to the Court).
2. Concession of the claim would have serious "knock-on"
effects throughout the Company's wage structure and
would serve to undermine its cost competitiveness.
3. The "kit prep"/warehouse operator is a higher level job
in terms of duties and responsibilities and requires a
number of qualifications and skills, i.e., forklift
licence and computer literacy, not required for
production/line service operators (details supplied to
the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
satisfied that the claim is cost-increasing and, therefore,
concession cannot be recommended in the period of the PCW. It
appears that it is also covered by the terms of the Union/Company
Agreement.
The Court considers that it would be beneficial for the parties to
draw up and agree detailed job-descriptions for all categories of
operatives.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th November, 1995 Evelyn Owens
M.K./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.