FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : S.L.C. TECHNOLOGIES LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. IR797/99.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company designs, manufactures and distributes residential and commercial security systems and employs 250 workers. It operates a skill based incremental pay scale introduced in 1998 as follows:
- AR 1 unskilled
AR2 semi-skilled
AR3 skilled
AR4 highly/multi skilled
The appeal concerns a worker with 11 years service who works in the Quality Audit Department. She is on AR1 pay scale maximum. The Union claims that the worker is entitled to be upgraded on the basis of her work skills, experience and responsibility. Management rejected the claim stating that the worker was on the appropriate pay scale. It had investigated her claim for regarding earlier in the year vis a vis the laid down criteria. She had failed to meet the standards required for up-grading. Subsequently, the Company agreed to the Union's request to carry out an analysis of the claimant's work to ascertain if she was entitled to an up-grade. The Company claims that the results showed that the claimant's job did not differ in skill level from that of other general operatives and was of equal importance to the work of other general operatives.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 9th of February, 2000, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the Union and the Company agree an objective job evaluation in order to consider the worker's position."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.)
Subsequently both parties appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court. A Court hearing was held on the 18th of May, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's skills and expertise in the Quality Audit Department have enhanced her position within the Company in relation to responsibility for Quality. She has added value to her position but the Company has refused to recognise her contribution in the crucial area of quality control.
2. Presently, there are two workers in the Quality Audit Section and the claimant has trained the other employee in aspects of the work of the department and both staff are expected to be experts in all aspects of Quality Assurance (details to the Court). Both staff are also expected to complete and endorse Company Quality Record Sheets as Quality Audit Inspectors. The title itself, by its very definition clearly makes a definite distinction between staff employed in the Quality Audit Department and general operatives.
3. The claimant seems in all but name to be considered as a Quality Audit Inspector, she carries out all the training and responsibility of the position but has been told that she has no more skills that a general operative. At a previous time in the history of the Quality Audit Department, it is the Union's understanding that a differential had been paid to staff in this sensitive, skilled and responsible position.
4. The claimant was under the impression that when she applied for the post it would carry a plus payment.
5. The worker has secured training and expertise in Quality Control and has acquired skills that clearly set her apart from General Operatives and logically point to a situation where an upgrade in pay would be the only reasonable and just resolution of the claim.
6. The Company could have accommodated the claim for up-grading within the existing structure. Even after the Rights Commissioner's hearing it regraded another group of workers whose skills, it could be said, may not even be comparable to those in the Quality Audit Department.
7. The Company's failure to agree to have the worker's claim assessed objectively is unusual, and is a departure from the normal good industrial relations practices that would apply in such circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes that the responsibility for quality lies with every employee. The Company has worked with the World Class Manufacturing philosophy for many years and regards it as a fundamental principle. Quality is a key criterion when appraising employees and the monthly-paid incentive bonus contains an element paid for the equality of their work. SLC Technologies is currently undergoing a process of devolving quality control to the production cells, and the Quality Audit Department will be integrated into one of these cells.
2. The new skill-based pay scales were introduced on the suggestion and with the co-operation of the employees and the Unions. Since the introduction of the new grades the Pay Committee representing Factory Floor workers has never raised as an issue or queried the grade of those working in the quality area. It has, however, queried the grades of many other workers and, indeed, on occasion has been successful in its intervention. The Company believes that its scales are fair and equitable and these, combined with the long service pay award, ensure that SLC Technologies personnel have fared well. The pay rates are more attractive than rates existing in comparable companies within the industry and locale and increases considerably above the norm have been paid over recent years. The claimant has received a 13% increase in pay since January, 1999.
3. There are laid down and accepted criteria to be met in order to move up grades. Again these criteria are fair and reasonable and a number of employees has been regraded since the scheme was introduced. Changes to pay or grades, restructuring or modification to scales or introduction of new scales are always agreed with the Pay Committee and this method of communication and agreement is fully supported by all staff.
4. All positions are advertised internally. Employees' attention is drawn particularly to those jobs which carry a higher or premium rate of pay. Where at all possible, promotion is made from within the existing work force.
5. The skills and competencies of the claimant's job are similar to those of any other general operative on grade one.
6. Each job is evaluated and graded by the Human Resources Manager in tandem with the relevant Manager and/or the Director of Operations. This method is similar to that operating throughout all SLC Technology plants throughout Europe and Africa, employing nearly a thousand individuals. This evaluation is a job competencies evaluation system. It should be noted that the HR Manager has extensive experience in job evaluation and lectures on this subject in the National College of Ireland. The Production Manager is also well experienced in this area; he possesses a Diploma in Manufacturing, Engineering and a Degree in Business Studies. The Company believes that these individuals are eminently qualified and possess the required experience to carry out any job assessments within the Company. Therefore, while the Company thanks the Rights Commissioner for his Recommendation it does not, at present, see the need to utilise the skills of outside assessors. The imposition of an outside assessor is not necessary, as the Company is sufficiently qualified to carry out its own assessment.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions, supports the Rights Commissioner's findings.
The Court therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects both appeals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
25 May, 2000.______________________
TOD/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.