FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SPS HI-LIFE TOOLS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. SPS International Limited Hi-Life Tools Division is a subsidiary of SPS Technologies, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania. The Company manufactures Precision Tooling, which is used primarily in the manufacture of fasteners for the Automotive, Aerospace and Machine Tool industry. It currently employs a workforce of one hundred and fifty three employees.
SPS International is operating in Shannon since 1960 and has two other facilities on the Shannon Industrial Estate producing cutting tools and precision fasteners, trading as Mohawk Europa and Unbrako employing one hundred and forty and one hundred and
eighty employees respectively.
The business has developed from providing a predominantly corporate tool service to a stand alone business entity where currently 70% of its output is sold in a globally competitive market place.
The Union sought an upgrade for two of its members in line with 4 lead men working in the Thread Role Dye (TRD) areas. It maintained that the grade was a common one and was unwilling to accept a lump sum payment. Discussions took place locally but agreement could not be reached and the Union referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held in May, 2002. As agreement could not be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) (a) (b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, on the 7th of June, 2002. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of September, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. For over 15 years the lead man function has been graded at grade 1 level in the TRD section. It has been customary for lead men to be the same grade and to attract the same rate of pay within the TRD section.
2. The core functions of the leadman job are generic and accordingly should be at the common grade of grade 1 plus the 7% differential.
3. In attempting to divide the leadmen into 2 distinct groups with new job descriptions the Company attempted to breach the custom and practice for 15 years.
4. There is little or no difference in core leadman functions in the Company's proposed new job descriptions for the two workers.
5. Both workers have been and are currently available for CNC training which would enable them to fill every criteria on this job description.
6. Both workers fulfil supervisory roles on a day to day basis and have on many occasions covered for the foreman within that section in his absence.
7. One of the workers often gives advice to TRD Specialist operators regarding facets of work process as well as assisting and advising the Engineering Department regarding the jobs process.
8. Both workers were recently verbally reprimanded for their non attendance at a section leadmans meeting called by the General Manager.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is suffering badly from an unprecedented erosion of its competitiveness, which has forced it to embark upon a number of restructuring programmes in order to ensure its future viability in a very uncertain market environment.
2. The plant has to compete with competition from the Far East such as Taiwan with much lower unit labour costs.
3. The international downturn in the Aerospace industry is adversely impacting upon the Company's order book and future projections show little sign of a reversal of this trend.
4. This is a labour intensive business with labour costs accounting for a staggering 52% of the Company's overall costs.
5. The four leadmen have a different job description to the two claimants. They are not required to perform Thread Roll Die Specialist leadmen duties.
6. If the Company was forced to accede to the Union's claim in this case, it would be gravely concerned with the potential knock on effects that this would have within the Company's grading structure from other leadmen and production operators.
7. This claim is a cost increasing claim under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. Management sought to resolve this issue both at local level and at conciliation through a proposal incorporating a lump sum payment of €3,175.00 which the individuals were not prepared to accept.
8. Management is of the view that a lump sum payment in line with previous agreements is a fair and equitable approach to resolving this issue given all the circumstances relating to this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned at the unstructured approach taken by management to the introduction of a new grading structure in the Company which has given rise to difficulties for certain categories of staff. However, the Court accepts that the differential currently paid to the two leadman who are the claimants in this case, is appropriate and the Court does not concede the claim for the application of the differential applicable to the specialists' grade.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the claimants should accept the lump sum offered by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th September, 2002______________________
HMCD/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.