Over 80 per cent of manufacturing firms now use "atypical" workers but few provide training for them, according to a new study. It also questions the effectiveness of auditing for the ISO 9000 standard in the sector.

The main forms of atypical working in manufacturing are part-time, temporary and contract staff. Atypical personnel form up to 45 per cent of the workforce in some factories and the most common reason given for employing them is that they are easier to layoff, or make redundant than permanent employees.

The study is based on a survey of atypical working in 201 manufacturing companies which have ISO 9000 certification. The initial survey was followed by an indepth look at atypical working in six companies. These were located in the food, textiles, pharmaceutical and mechanical engineering sectors.

One of the authors, Ms Teresa Hanratty of Sligo RTC, says that respondents felt a major defect in the ISO 9000 auditing system was the fact that they were normally given two or three days advance notice of a visit by the National Standards Authority of Ireland. Inevitably companies ensured they were on their best behaviour on the day of the visit.

She is highly critical of the level of auditing applied to training. One of the company's she looked at in depth, with her colleague Ms Brigid Milner of Waterford RTC, had been given an ISO 9000, although it had no budget for training and there was a high level of returns of defective equipment from customers.

Training is an essential requirement for ISO 9000 accreditation.

Of the 201 companies surveyed, 82 per cent use atypical workers. The most common form of atypical working is part-time employment.

Only 15 per cent of organisations allocate a specific proportion of their training budget to specific sectors of the workforce. In the majority of cases it goes to training management and full-time staff. "Little, if any, of the training budget was being allocated to atypical employees," says Ms Hanratty.

While all responding organisations agreed with the statements that, "Training is essential to organisational success" and "Training has a positive effect on quality of product", only 80 per cent of respondents conducted induction training and only 38.6 per cent stipulated that contract workers must complete a training course. Inadequate funds and lack of time are the main reasons companies give for lack of training.

They also complained about the amount of paperwork required from them by the NSAI while, at the same time, saying the authority fails to keep them adequately informed about "best practice" elsewhere.

The study reveals that awareness of "quality" as a strategic business objective has only gained significant currency in the manufacturing sector in recent years. The majority of respondents only received ISO 9000 accreditation since 1994.

The level of atypical employment varies from 10 per cent to 45 per cent, according to the study. Reasons cited for the growing use of atypical employment were the ability to let people go when demand fell, lower overheads and "the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to terminate the permanent worker in Ireland". The study also found "clear evidence to suggest that production within ISO 9000 registered organisations in the Irish manufacturing sector will always take precedence over training".

It said that atypical employees were quite willing to participate in training programmes. "The lack of training received by such employees was reflective of management's lack of commitment to such employees". The study found there was a low level of overall training in the sector. This was due primarily to defects in the ISO 9000 auditing system and lack of commitment by management, rather than resistance by employees to change.

Mr Tom Quinn of the NSAI was not prepared to comment on the survey without first seeing it, but he said advance notice of audits was necessary for logistical reasons.

A year's warning would not bring a company up to the necessary standard if it was not already meeting it.

Training was primarily a matter for agencies like FAS and RTCS. He also said the the NSAI was itself subject to regular audits by the National Accreditation Board and RAB, its US equivalent.

Nevertheless, the authority would be interested in looking at the survey.