FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ORGANON TEKNIKA LTD (FINGLAS) (REPRESENTED BY EMPLOYEE RELATION SERVICE LTD.) - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Process operator pay claim. 2. General operatives' pay claim. 3. Warehouse pay claim. 4. Claim for Laboratory Technician.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures medical devices for hospitals at its factory in Finglas. It employs approximately 120 workers and is part of the Akzo Nobel group which is based in Holland. The parent Company has decided to sell the manufacturing operation in Finglas.
The Union's claim is as follows:-
Process Operativesclaim based on IPC Report
The Union is seeking a pay increase for process operatives based on 95% of the Laboratory Technician pay scale (9 point scale) as recommended in an IPC Report. It states that the increase should not be contingent on any redundancies in this area and argues that redundancies were not part of the I.P.C. report. The Union wants the IPC Report implemented as follows:-
Point 7 of the 92% grade on 1/7/2002
Point 8 of the 92% grade on 1/7/2002
Point 9 of the 92% grade on 1/7/2003
It also claims that the findings of the IPC Report has confirmed that the new job of "Process Technician" be set at 95% of the now defunct Laboratory Technician salary scale and wants discussions to commence on implementation of the 95% as recommended by the IPC.
Management claims that the IPC Report valued the process operators' job at 92% of the Laboratory Technician rate of pay. The Company is prepared to look at a starting point beyond point 5 for all participants remaining in the grade and are willing to allow those remaining to progress up the scale to point 9 on the basis of time increments as opposed to a skills/competency assessment as recommended in the IPC Report. Due to a downturn in business, some redundancies will be necessary.
General Operatives
The Union's claim is for (a) an increase of 8% on the basic rate of pay: (b) the 2nd phase of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (P.P.F.) brought forward from the 1st of April, 2002, to the 1st of November, 2001: and (c) 2 lump sum payments of 2 x € 952.3 gross €1904.61. This would bring the rates of pay into line with general operatives at the Swords plant.
Management states that the Union has not put forward any suggestion to justify their pay claim. Additional payments cannot be made unless there are productivity measures implemented which would result in a cost neutral basis.
Warehouse pay claim
The Union is seeking the retention of interchangeability between Process Technicians and the Warehouse staff and the payment of the Process Technician rate of pay to the Warehouse staff.
Management states that the link between the two grades is being discontinued. It cannot justify a pay increase linking them to the new grade of Process Technician.
Claim for Laboratory Technician
The Union is looking for payment of a lump sum on behalf of a Laboratory Technician for his co-operation in the restructuring of the Company.
The Company is willing to maintain the individual concerned in his current role with his employment terms and conditions unchanged.
Process Operatives Claim
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The job of the Process Operator is substantially different in content and responsibility from that which was the position in the past.
2. The workers are now dealing with 51 processes and in doing so are responsible for a variety of procedures and tasks to facilitate the production of diagnostic products.
3. Any mistake by a Process Operator can have major consequences. Many operators were previously doubled checked by a Supervisor. The operator now checks the work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The work of a Process Operator is not substantially different in context and responsibility from that in the past. This work has always involved making solutions according to a given prescription.
2. The actual processes carried out by Process Operatives are covered by 6 core skills which have not changed at all in the last 24 years.
General Operative Pay Claim
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union is seeking the same pay increase as that given to workers at the Company's plant in Swords in July, 2000. Prior to this agreement, the rates of pay were similar at both locations.
2. The Union are simply trying to restore the status quo.
3. The plant in Finglas is profitable. The Company can afford the increase the Union is seeking.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has reviewed the General Operative grade and cannot see any real opportunity for productivity improvement in this grade other than the elimination of certain breaks.
2. The Company cannot justify this cost increasing claim without corresponding productivity improvement which would result in an overall cost neutral situation
Warehouse Pay Claim
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union is seeking the retention of interchangeability between Process Technicians and the Warehouse staff. It gave the Company great flexibility as the Process Operatives could be deployed on that job when necessary or revert back to the Warehouse when times got slack.
2. As both sides benefited from this arrangement, it should be continued. The Process Technician rate of pay should apply to the Warehouse staff.
3. Process Operatives will now be designated as Process Technicians under the IPC Report. The Union wants the Process Technician rate of pay to apply to those working in the Warehouse.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Warehouse assistant job does not warrant pay parity with the new Process Technician grade. The Company does not see any value in maintaining a flexibility arrangement for Warehouse personnel to work in production as it has not been used for the past number of years.
2. The Company cannot justify an increase in pay rates for Warehouse staff and is prepared to relinquish the flexibility arrangement associated with this.
Claim for Laboratory Technician
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The worker has co-operated with the arrangement to have the IPC Report implemented. This should be recognised by payment of a lump sum, plus upgrading to chargehand rate of pay.
2. He has received no offer of any kind of payment even though his co-operation is vital to the project.
3. The worker does not believe the title of Process Technician is reflective of his qualifications, experience or expertise and wishes to retain the title of QA Technician.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. In recognition of the service and knowledge/skills/competency contributions to the Laboratory Technician position, the Company is willing to maintain the claimant in his current role with his employment terms and conditions unchanged.
2. The Company is willing to confirm this position on the agreement from MSF that this would be without precedence and the position will not be used in the future for a claim of parity or equality.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all aspects of these claims referred to the Court and recommends as follows:-
Process Operatives Claim
The Court recommends acceptance of the IPC report (July, 2001) by both sides with the following amendments:
- Process operatives should be assimilated onto point 7 of the scale as recommended by IPC for the newly created grade of Process Technician, with effect from the 1st of July, 2002. This point should take account of the 5% increase already paid as an interim payment pending the outcome of the job evaluation exercise. Progression up the scale to point 9 should be on a "time served" basis. Therefore, point 8 should be effective from the 1st of July, 2003, and point 9 from the 1st of July, 2004.
- New entrants to this grade should be started at a point on the scale that reflects their skills/competency/qualifications.
- When the assimilation period has been completed in July, 2004, the parties should assess the duties of the Process Technicians' grade to consider whether there is justification for the introduction of the 95% as suggested by IPC. If no agreement on this point is reached, the matter may be referred back to the Court at that time.
- The offer of two (Laboratory Technician scale) increments without any change of terms and conditions of employment, to the named Laboratory Technician should be accepted. The Court views this offer as fair and reasonable in the circumstances, in return for agreement to facilitate the inclusion of the Process Operatives into the new grade and co-operation with the change.
General Operatives Pay Claim
The Union claimed an increase of 8% in basic pay for general operatives plus the bringing forward of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) dates and the payment of two lump sums. The Company indicated that they are prepared to negotiate a package on a cost neutral basis. The Court recommends that the parties should return to local negotiations to discuss this claim in return for clear productivity measures being implemented.
Pay Relativity for Warehousemen
The Union require the retention of interchangeability between Process Technicians and Warehousemen, plus the payment of the Process Technician Rate for those in the Warehouse. The Court does not see that there is validity in this claim. Process Technicians are a newly created grade resulting from the merger of the Process Operative grade and the Laboratory Technicians' grade and accordingly, bear no relation to the previous grade. These two grades will be two distinct and separate processes for the future and therefore there will be no need for such interchangeability. Consequently, there is no validity in the claim for the Process Technicans' grade rate to be paid to the Warehouse operative.
Redundancies
The Court accepts the Union's point that redundancies were not part of the IPC report; no reference was made in the terms of reference to redundancies. The Company indicate that the position the Company is now in require reduced manning levels, and there is a possibility for redeployment. The Court notes that the parties have a divided view on the need for redundancies. The Court recommends that the parties should meet to discuss the matter. In the event of such redundancies becoming necessary, the Court recommend that the "Last in First out" principle should apply, with the usual proviso of retaining key personnel.
The Court recommends that upon acceptance of this recommendation, both sides must give full commitment to work within procedures, and adhere to all agreements and industrial relations procedures.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st May, 2002______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.