Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86687 Case Number: LCR10840 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NET - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of approximately thirty clerical workers at the Company's Arklow factory, for extension of a special skills allowance arising from computerisation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the compensation paid under the
terms of the 1979 agreement covers the introduction of new
technology (including computer) and accordingly finds no
justification for recommending concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86687 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10840
Section 20(2) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10840
PARTIES: NITRIGIN EIREANN TEORANTA
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately thirty clerical workers at
the Company's Arklow factory, for extension of a special skills
allowance arising from computerisation.
Background:
2. The Company is currently in the process of implementing a
programme for competitiveness which includes comprehensive
agreements with individual groups of employees. The Union is
seeking extension to all clerical staff of a special skills
allowance, relating to computerisation, currently paid to one
clerical worker and a number of supervisors who have attended an
approved computer course. The Company rejected the claim on the
basis that payment for computerisation was already provided for
under the terms of the 1979 Union/Management productivity
agreement. The allowance claimed currently stands at #325 per
annum but is to be increased to #650 per annum in line with C.P.I.
increases from 1979 to date. The issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 10th June, 1986 and a
conciliation conference took place on 9th July, 1986. No
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for binding recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Arklow on 12th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company maintains that computerisation is already
paid for in the 1979 Union/Management Productivity
Agreement. That Agreement states:
" The use of computers and other equipment which
become available to be accepted by both parties as
a normal development in the provision of clerical
services within the organisation. "
(Section 3)
When the Union side accepted this Agreement, there
were approximately 100 clerical workers. The
introduction of computerisation and its development
has contributed to the major reduction in staff
numbers. It was never envisaged that computerisation
would so rapidly cover almost all of the clerical
functions.
(ii) Further computerisation is on-going and each office
will soon have some form of computer equipment
installed. This equipment is already on site and the
workers fear that this will lead to a further
reduction in staff numbers, an increase in an already
heavy workload and a requirement that all clerical
workers learn new skills concerning the operation and
programming of computers. The Union considers that
the allowance should therefore be extended to include
all clerical workers. When computers were first
introduced the work was performed solely by the Data
Processing Department.
(iii) The Union has from 1980 until recently, been unable
to pursue special increases for its members because
of a moratorium on such increases imposed by the
Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) In addition to Section 3, the 1979 Productivity
Agreement also states in Section 5
" The transfer of manually performed services to the
computer and/or other systems shall be accepted as an
optimisation of clerical services".
An annual allowance of 6% of salary, as at 1st December
each year was awarded in return for acceptance of this
Agreement.
(b) The Company's programme for competitiveness, launched
in September, 1984, included a comprehensive agreement
for all employees. The agreement in respect of the
clerical workers included the original productivity
Agreement. In June, 1985 the Company offered a three
year wage agreement which gave increases of 4%, 2% and
3% in return for acceptance of the programme. One of
the basic tenets behind the comprehensive agreement and
the reason for the high pay offer is the necessity to
co-operate with technological change. The agreement
states:
" The Union agree to co-operate with measures designed
to increase efficiency subject to the provisions of
clause 7.1.5. Such measures may include but not be
limited to the introduction of technological
developments, equipment and new methods. "
and also:
" The parties to this agreement recognise the need to
constantly review and up-date equipment and methods
of operation. Therefore all employees agree to
accept and use such equipment and to co-operate in
the interests of plant efficiency and job security,
subject to the provisions of clause 7.1.5. "
(c) Following the difficulties which arose with the
clerical staff over this issue the Company offered to
pay #300 per individual but this offer, which the
Company considers to be generous in the present
financial circumstances, was rejected.
(d) The Company is satisfied that by entering into the
productivity agreement in 1979 it purchased the freedom
to introduce and extend computerisation and other
equipment then and in the future, subject to
consultation with the Union in advance. In return for
acceptance of the comprehensive agreement a further
payment will apply to the clerical group. One of the
basic tenets behind the agreement was the necessity to
co-operate with technological change.
(e) Other groups who have concluded the agreement have
accepted the new technology and in certain areas have
taken on board as much technology as the majority of
the clerical group.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the compensation paid under the
terms of the 1979 agreement covers the introduction of new
technology (including computer) and accordingly finds no
justification for recommending concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___4th__December,__1986. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman