FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ANALOG DEVICES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No BC 442/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company designs and manufactures integrated circuits and employs over 1,000 workers. The appeal relates to a claim by the Union that its industrial Engineer should be allowed to examine work carried out by general operatives on the Beam Cal machine normally carried out by the technician grade. The Company while not objecting in principle to the exercise sees no validity for the request. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 28th May, 1996 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"In the light of the above my belief has been formed that the request should be granted to the Trade Union but in the strict context of specific terms of reference. These terms of reference should confront and satisfactorily dispose of the fears of the Company that any report from an Industrial Engineer might give credence to the introduction of unwelcome demarcation. I therefore suggest that the terms of reference should confirm that the Industrial Engineer's report, following his examination, be issued to both sides and the question is whether the Beam Cal task is within the capabilities of the operatives concerned. He should also express a view as to whether the operatives to whom this task has been assigned have the capacity within their working day to carry out this task along with those other tasks associated with their normal duties. There should be a clear and specific understanding between the parties that nothing that emerges from the Industrial Engineers report will disturb the culture of flexibility existing among the employees. The Beam Cal task as carried out by operatives at present should continue to be so carried out by operatives and any residual matters to be the subject of discussion between the parties".
On the 8/7/96 the Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Limerick on the 9/10/96.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has not been, and there cannot be any question of whether any particular work is "proper to operators" or any other group of employees. Complete flexibility is essential. This is the only way that the semiconductor industry could operate given the need for continuous change and improvement in processes which occur.
2. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the Industrial Engineer be allowed to examine the work but then confines the report to two questions the answers to which are already known. With regard to question 1, as to whether operators "have the skill competence and capability to perform the work," they have been performing the task fully and satisfactorily since they were trained. With regard to question 2, regarding "the operators having the capacity .............. to carry out the task", operators do not have a fixed schedule of tasks or a fixed amount of work to perform each day. They work continuously through their shift and hand over uncompleted work to the next shift. The Beam Cal task is performed instead of other work, and not in addition to it.
3. There is no point in the Industrial Engineer examining the work. However, any remaining concerns which workers may have concerning the performance task of the Beam Cal can be dealt with directly between workers and their supervisors.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers were directed by Management to carry out work normally proper to technicians. They have done so under protest. It is crucial that this work should be examined by the Union's Industrial Engineer. In a modern industrial relations situation it is essential that professional advice be available to both parties to resolve issues before they become industrial disputes.
2. The Union is seeking expert advice which it is entitled to do and the Rights Commissioner endorsed this view. The Union is not trying to break any Company/Union agreements. If, however, the Union is debarred from bringing in its engineer to examine the work, the employees may withdraw from doing the task.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that the employees here concerned have been carrying out the work required, albeit under protest, and consequently have demonstrated they have the capability to carry out the task required.
The Court also finds that the work required can be performed within the working day and in this context notes that the Company have clearly stated that this work is performed instead of other work and not in addition to it.
The Court also notes that the Company have indicated they have no objection in principle to the Union's Industrial Engineer being introduced in appropriate circumstances.
Accordingly the Court upholds the appeal of the Company and rejects the claim of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
1st November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.