FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAXTER HEALTHCARE S.A. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Regrading
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of a number of quality control checkers (QA grade) and utility grade members in the Company's Swinford plant. The Union claims that these workers are carrying out duties which are outside their normal responsibilities, and it is seeking that a study be conducted by an agreed third party. The Union supplied a list of these duties which included for the utility grades :- computer work, pallet wrapping, planning scheduling, preventive maintenance, production relief, documentation and involvement in QA duties. The QA grade duties include computer work, production routers and batch changes. The Company believes that the claim is a re-grading one and was already the subject of LCR16373 which issued in December,1999. In it, the Court recommended that discussions should take place between the parties as to how employees are rewarded for taking on significant extra duties.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place in July, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd of March, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 9th of May, 2001, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. LCR16373 recommended that the parties should have discussions on the claims but this has not happened. The Union is seeking that the claim should be assessed.
2. It is recognised that different work practices have developed in both plants (Swinford and Castlebar) between corresponding categories of staff. The Company has dealt with differentials before.
3. The number of supervisors in Swinford has been reduced and their work has been transferred to the utility and QA grades. The workers concerned should be rewarded for their additional responsibilities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The outcome of LCR16373 is being dealt with for all employees under local negotiations, but the workers concerned are pressing ahead with their own claim.
2. All employees at every level have embraced changes over the years. No one group of workers has gone through a level of change significantly different to another. The Company would see the rewarding of one group at the expense of all other employees as divisive.
3. There have been several Labour Court recommendations in the past dealing with similar claims, and the Court has usually upheld the Company's position that conceding such claims would have a knock-on effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that this case is the same as a previous case which was before the Court in November, 1999, at which time the Court recommended that"how employees are rewarded for taking on significant extra duties should form the basis of future discussions between the Company and the Union. These discussions could include gainsharing and partnership."This recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Court recommends that the discussions that have been ongoing on pay revision, flexibility and co-operation should continue, on the basis of the 1999 recommendation.
The Court recommends that the parties should agree a formula on how to deal with these types of regrading claims for the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
May, 2001______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.