FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ANALOG DEVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Service recognition 2. Retention of position on transfer list.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the design manufacture and marketing of integrated circuits and employs approximately 1,300 workers. As part of a restructuring programme which was undertaken in recent times it was necessary to close one department,(4FAB) area which was involved in the production of 4'' wafer discs. The work pattern in the 4 FAB area was days, evenings nights and weekends. Following extensive negotiations considerable progress was made in retaining as many jobs as possible. The discussions involved the transfer of a number of operators from the 4FAB department to the 6/8FAB department. Work in this department is of a more skilled nature employing the higher MTM grade. Work is on a 5 shift cycle basis and the parties could not reach agreement on the issues of workers transferring to this department having service recognition and retention of their position on the transfer list. Prior to the restructuring, increments were granted to both operators in the 4FAB and to MTM's in the 6/8FAB department on an assessment basis. The maximum for operatives in the 4FAB was attained after 15 months whereas increments continued up to 51 months in the 6/8FAB department. The Union maintains that operators transferring should be assimilated onto the MTM scale to a point reflective of their length of service. These long service workers should not be assessed prior to moving to a point higher than the 15 month service point on the scale.The second unresolved issue relates to the transfer list that existed within the 4FAB area. Those wishing to transfer from nights to evenings or from evenings to days, placed their names on a list and were placed on the desired shift as vacancies arose. There has never been a transfer list in operation between the 5 cycle area and other areas. The Union claims that those who had to transfer on to a 5 cycle shift should retain the facility to transfer back to a regular shift, using the list system, as soon as vacancies arise. Management rejected the claims. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in April, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations ACT, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 17th September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Service recognition.Workers should not have to wait four years to reach the scale maximum, where their service is already exceeds this period.
2. The Union acknowledges that the Company dropped the normal entry requirements for this department to facilitate workers' transfers.
3. The Company must acknowledge the workers' very long service therefore there are no training issues arising.
4. Workers were assimilated very quickly into the department because of their experience. They should be placed at the top of the scale immediately, where their service exceeds the 4 year requirement. The Union can confirm that objections would not be raised by other employees as they acknowledge it is a service recognition issue.
5.Retention of position on transfer list.The Union is not seeking to open a transfer pathway per se for workers from the 5 cycle shift to other areas. Those working this shift ( because the alternative was unemployment) should be facilitated with a transfer back to their previous shift if and when vacancies arise. The transfer to the 5 cycle shift cannot be considered voluntary in the circumstances.
6. The 5 cycle shift is an extremely unsociable one and workers are anxious to return to a normal work pattern. The cost is not substantial as they would revert to normal pay should they be allowed to retain their places on the original transfer list.
7. Those workers not previously on the transfer list, but who have longer service than those on the list, and are currently on 5 shift cycle, should also be facilitated with transfers based on their seniority.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Service Recognition.One of the reasons for creating the higher grade (MTM) was to achieve a higher level of performance which needs to be demonstrated consistently and assessed in an annual performance review. In return and following a successful performance review, an MTM received a 2.5 pay increase for three further increments beyond the operator grade resulting in an 8% differential in pay. This higher grade and pay structure was established in 1997 following agreement with the Union. Higher pay increases have to be earned through consistent demonstrated performance.
2. The claim for service recognition pay is cost increasing and precluded under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and Sustaining Progress agreements.
3.Retention of position on transfer list.The Company has never had a transfer policy to other operator jobs from this grade and to grant the Union's request would set a precedent in this regard. Even if the Company acceded to the request it would be extremely unfair to other operators who have had their names on a list for the next available day job who would in essence be moved back down the list.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:
Incremental Credit.
The system of incremental progression agreed and applied by the Company is based on a combination of service and performance assessment. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to award incremental increases to those transferred to the MTM grade based solely on service. The Court does, however, consider that some consideration should be given to those who have acquired long service in their former grade along the lines offered by management at conciliation. The Court recommends that the offer in that regard should be modified so as to provide for accelerated progression to both the second and third point of the MTM scale by having the review after six months in each case. The first and final points should remain as at present.
Transfer List.
The Court can see some merit in the union's claim for the retention of shift transfers opportunities on a personal to holder basis for those who transferred from the operator grade. However the company has articulated real and substantial concerns at the probable difficulties which could result from implementing the union's proposal. The Court believes that there is substance in those concerns. This is particularly so in relation to the displacement of employees already on the list and the anomalies which would be created by providing transfer opportunities to some employees in 6 FAB and not to others.
The Court recommends that the parties should have further discussions on this matter and consider how the concerns referred to might be realistically assuaged so as to permit some transfer opportunities being afforded to the employees concerned on a once off red-circled basis.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th September, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.