Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86865 Case Number: LCR10998 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ORGANNON/NOURYPHARMA - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of two storekeepers and two store assistants for a 20% increase in basic pay in respect of the operation of new technology.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the introduction of computerised
systems into the stores area is part of ongoing change taking
place throughout the Company and has not fundamentally altered the
nature of the work involved. The Court therefore, does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86865 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10998
CC861388 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10998
PARTIES: ORGANON/NOURYPHARMA (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of two storekeepers and two store assistants
for a 20% increase in basic pay in respect of the operation of new
technology.
Background:
2. The Company manufactures a range of pharmaceutical and
diagnostic products at its two locations in Dublin. It employs
approximately 150 workers, 80 of whom are represented by the
Union.
3. Since 1980 the Company has been gradually introducing a
computerised stock recording system in its two warehouses. The
system became fully operational in May, 1986, following which the
Union, on behalf of the workers concerned served a claim on the
Company for a 20% increase in basic pay based on an increased
level of responsibility and skill through the use of new
technology. The current weekly rates of pay of the workers are as
follows:-
Storekeepers Store assistants
#193.75 #176.14
The Company rejected the claim and as no agreement could be
reached at local level the matter was referred, on 18th August,
1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference, held on 24th October, 1986, failed to
resolve the matter and the claim was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 5th December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The computerisation of the stores function has greatly
increased the level of skill and responsibility
required to carry out the job of store keeper and
store assistant (documents showing the changes brought
about by computerisation in the stores' area were
supplied to the Court). The acquisition of these
improved skills and additional responsibilities by the
workers concerned has increased their value to the
Company and therefore, they should be rewarded
accordingly.
(ii) What was in effect a basic stores function of taking
delivery of stock, maintaining bin cards and
physically moving stock, has now become a function
combining normal stores work with stock control work
which was previously carried out by clerical grades
and has now been absorbed by the stores personnel. In
the process these workers have acquired the skills and
responsibilities previously associated with the
clerical function.
(iii) The Company contends that a previous commitment by the
Union to co-operate with new technology absolves it of
having to reward the workers concerned. However, this
is not the true position. The Union had agreed to
co-operate with new and improved methods and this
co-operation is continuing as this claim is being
processed. In this respect, the Union considers it
more satisfactory to wait until the new system is
fully operational before formulating a claim rather
than the traditional method of opposing the
introduction of new technology until agreement is
reached on its value.
(iv) If a Company is allowed to construe that agreement to
co-operate with new technology as tantamount to
accepting, that, regardless of its impact, there is no
obligation to reward employees for acquiring new
skills, then the obvious response from employees will
be to refuse co-operation until agreement has been
made.
(v) Claims of a similar nature have been met by numerous
companies throughout industry generally by way of
increased remuneration or improved working conditions.
The workers concerned should not be treated any less
favourably.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The introduction of computerisation was agreed upon
and paid for in the basic rates of pay of the stores
personnel; specifically in the 22nd and 23rd wage
round agreements.
(b) All other groups in the Company have accepted the
principle of computerisation and are operating same
without any special payments outside those agreed in
conjunction with the pay rounds. Therefore,
concession of this claim would have obvious serious
repercussive effects for the Company.
(c) Additional concessions in regard to the introduction
of this type of change are now the exception rather
than the norm.
(d) The rates of pay and conditions of employment of
stores personnel compare favourably with comparable
employments both in the industry and in industry
generally.
(e) The changes brought about by operating VDU's do not
fundamentally alter the nature and skills of the job
which predominantly remains one of storekeeping.
(f) There is no basis for any further increase for stores
personnel arising out of the operation of VDU's in the
stores. Therefore, the claim must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the introduction of computerised
systems into the stores area is part of ongoing change taking
place throughout the Company and has not fundamentally altered the
nature of the work involved. The Court therefore, does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th February, 1987 John O'Connell
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman