Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Worker

Employer

Representatives

Rachel Hartery, SIPTU

Robin McKenna, IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00033952-001

23/01/2020

The employer is a manufacturing company and employs 110 full-time staff.  The worker has been employed by the company since 1999 and holds the position of Key Operator.  The dispute arises from the training of members of the staff which was undertaken by the worker and a colleague.  The workers sought recognition for this training but following correspondence and a meeting between the workers’ union and management the issue remains unresolved.  The union referred the dispute to the WRC on 23 January 2020.

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020, and SI No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The training which the worker and a colleague provides saves a lot of product from being discarded.

The workers sought recognition for their contribution in this regard.

Management offered a once-off payment for this work.

The union put forward some suggestions as regards the workers’ role going forward but despite a meeting with senior management no agreement could be reached on the matter.

The offer of a once-off payment has never materialised.

The complaint is outside the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, as it relates to the rates of pay of a body of workers.

Apart from the preliminary issue, training staff is part of the job description of the grade to which the worker belongs and she is compensated accordingly.

Any increase in pay or annual leave would have a knock-on effect on other staff who deliver training.

This complaint was heard in conjunction with the complaint contained in File No. ADJ-00026748.

The employer operates an electronics manufacturing company producing telecom and industrial equipment.  It employs about 110 staff.  The worker has been employed by the company since 1999 and now holds the position of Key Operator.  The worker, together with a colleague, was trained to provide instruction to other staff on soldering as the company had been experiencing issues with this aspect of the manufacturing process.

In April 2019 the two workers approached their line manager with regard to the company providing some recognition for this work.  A meeting was held and representations were made by the local shop steward.   On 23 April the manager wrote to the worker with the company’s response.  In that letter it was stated that:

The company recognised that there had been a difference in expectations by workers and the company with regard to the provision of training in soldering.

The Key Operator position is the correct level for the provision of training and related duties.

In acknowledgement the company would credit the worker’s bank hours’ account by 25.5 hours.

The letter went on to express the company’s appreciation for the worker’s good work and stated that there would be discussion on further training in the future.

The workers were not satisfied with this response and referred the matter to their union official.  On 15 May the union wrote to the manager with regard to the issue.  This letter stated that the workers were suggesting two options.  Option (a) was for a payment of either double time or the accumulation of banked hours for the soldering training.  Option (b) was a 7-point proposal covering training, certification and Health and Safety issues.  There were further exchanges between the parties without agreement and consequently the union requested a meeting on the matter.

This meeting took place on 26 November.  The union side pointed out that the payment of 25.5 hours had not taken place and also expanded on the future role of the two workers in the soldering training, detailing a number of issues related to this matter.  The workers stated that if this “proactive” role was not acceptable then they would be prepared to accept double time (or TOIL) for the training.  The employer’s response to the meeting was contained in a letter from the company’s HR Coordinator written on 17 December in which it was stated that the worker was being paid the Key Operator’s rate and the duties attached to that position included training other employees and reworking.  The letter also noted that, as the issues were still in dispute, the company was not in a position to credit the worker’s banked hours’ account with the offered 25.5 hours.

The union referred the dispute to the WRC on 29 January 2020.

At the outset of the hearing the employer’s representative submitted that the adjudication officer could not hear this dispute as the referral was in breach of Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  Section 13(2) states:

Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with the rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Pat IV of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

The employer referenced the fact that the there had been a request that this dispute should be heard at the same time as an identical dispute from another worker and therefore the matter involved a body of workers.  It was further submitted that there could be further implications as fifteen other members of staff, in addition to the worker and her colleague, also deliver training to staff and the local shop steward had referred to these employees at the meeting of 26 November.

I decided that I would hear all submissions before making any decision in this regard.

During the hearing it was clear that there was some confusion as to what was precisely proposed in the union’s letter of 15 May.  The company initially believed that Option (b) was a proposal for a project to address the issues raised therein.  The workers, however saw it as a proposal for possible re-grading and the introduction of a new rate for that position.  In addition, the workers believed that they had received a promise of 25.5 hours additional banked hours in recognition for the work they had already performed and for which they had been commended.  The company took the view that that proposal was a gesture of goodwill dependent on acceptance of the company’s position that the workers were performing duties proper to their grade.

I note that the worker’s contract contains a clause setting out the duties pertinent to the role of Key Operator and that one of those duties is to “identify training needs (of staff) and to assist in fulfilling their needs.”

Having considered all the issues I believe that I can make a recommendation in respect of this worker who has a similar dispute to another worker and where the convenience of hearing both disputes together is of benefit to all parties.  I accept, however, that I am precluded from making a recommendation in respect of the rates of pay of a body of workers.

I recommend, therefore, that the company give effect to the proposal to grant the worker 25.5 hours’ credit to her banked hours’ account on the once-only basis set out in the letter of 23 April, i.e. in recognition of the fact that “your expectation for the terms and conditions for the task of providing solder training was different than the expectation of the company.”

I further recommend that consultations between the parties take place in order to identify staff training requirements and examine if such requirements need extra support as regards personnel issues, equipment, Health and Safety measures or other pertinent matters.  Any changes arising from this review should be the subject of discussions by the parties.

Staff Training     Recognition for Provision of Training     Application of Section 13 of Act