FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NORTEL LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Claim for Payment for additional responsibilities taken on by Grade 26 staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been established in Galway for a number of years and manufactures equipment for the telecommunications market. It employs approximately 700 workers, 60 of whom are involved in the dispute.
The Union's claim, which was originally made in 1994, is for additional payment (8%) for increased responsibility (including bar-coding), resulting from the introduction of new technology. In 1990, there were 6 grades in the Company. It was deceided to consolidate the 6 grades into 2 - grades 25 and 26, with the 5 lower grades being upgraded to grade 25. As part of a Company proposal, a new job description was agreed for Grade 26. A payment of £250 was paid to the workers for implementing the proposal, with further discussions on job evaluation to take place. The Union claims that the £250 was an interim payment, to be followed by a basic pay increase.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on 28th November, 1995. As there was no agreement between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 15th January, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th June, 1996 in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned now have total responsibility for keying in information regarding shipping, receiving and warehousing. Some of these duties were previously done by a clerical assistant. The workers are also responsible for stock inventory, shipment of orders and stock records. This often involves working beyond normal hours.
2. The Company has made substantial savings as a result of the workers taking on the extra duties. The £250 payment was an interim agreement, with the understanding that further payments would be made. The workers are still doing the additional duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The additional responsibilities have resulted from the introduction of new technology. Work which was previously done manually can now be done by bar- coding, which increases the efficiency of the work. The methods used now are simpler than the old manual system.
2. The £250 payment in 1994 was a once-off payment, and was described as such at the time of the Company proposal. The Company offered to have the job evaluation done by a third party but this was rejected by the Union. The Company must keep pace with changes in technology, which in many cases make the job easier for the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions, finds that, given the changes which have taken place in respect of the employees in Grade 26, there is a need to evaluate this grade in terms of content and value, with a view to establishing the appropriate rate of pay to be applied.
To this end, the parties should agree an acceptable third party to carry out an evaluation of the jobs in the grade.
The third party, in consultation with the employees and the management, should draw up a job description for the grade.
To ensure maximum involvement of all concerned, the job evaluation should be carried out using a participitative job evaluation system.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
27th June, 1996______________________
C.O'N/D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.