Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87377 Case Number: LCR11313 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - AUEW(TASS) |
Claim, on behalf of fourteen draughtsmen, for compensation for new technology.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the circumstances in this case the Court is
of the opinion that the draughtsmen should receive the same
compensation as other workers similarly affected and therefore
recommends that they should accept the Company's offer of 4 days
leave.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87377 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11313
CC87467 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11313
Parties: BORD NA MONA
and
AMALGAMATED UNION of ENGINEERING WORKERS(TASS)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of fourteen draughtsmen, for compensation for
new technology.
Background:
2. The claim concerns a claim for lump sum compensation of #450
gross for the introduction of new technology into the mechanical
drawing office. The new computer system will have the capacity
for a drawing classification file. The Union agreed in principle
to the introduction of the new system subject to the payment of
#450 technology payment and the acceptance by the Bord that this
would ;not prejudice further discussions if and when computer
aided design (C.A.D.) was introduced. The Bord agreed to the
condition about C.A.D. but rejected the claim for a payment of
#450. The Bord considered that the workers concerned had already
been compensated for the changes now being introduced by the
additional payment made under the 23rd wage round agreement.
However, the Bord did offer to concede approximately a once off
four days' annual leave (equivalent in value to #250). The Union
rejected this offer.
3. No agreement was reached at local negotiations and on 5th
March, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 5th May,
1987 (the earliest date suitable to the parties) but no agreement
was reached and on 11th May, 1987 the case was referred to the
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 10th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The Union's claim is for nothing more than has been
awarded by the Labour Court on no fewer than three
previous occasions. In June, 1984 a settlement of #450
with the clerical workers was recorded following
conciliation. In February, 1985 #450 was awarded to
those technical workers who were to be involved with
computerisation. In March of this year the same award
of #450 was made to more than 50 stores issuers. This
latter award followed protracted negotiations during
which the Bord insisted that the level of involvement
by the issuers would not merit compensation equal to
that awarded to the clerical workers or the technical
workers. There is no such guarantee that the
draughtsmens' involvement will be only peripheral.
(ii) The introduction of a computerised filing system is a
separate technology system and therefore should receive
the equivalent sum of that paid to others for the
introduction of new technology. If the draughtsmen had
been involved with the rest of the technical staff in
the overall claim, the Bord would have had to pay #450
for each draughtsman into the overall figure before
averaging for technical managerial staff. In other
words, had the draughtsmen been part of the general
technical staff agreement, it would have cost the
Bord exactly the same as we are now claiming.
(iii) If, as the Bord are arguing, the draughtsmens'
involvement is only peripheral, then why involve the
draughtsmen at all. This system will introduce greater
efficiency into the drawing office by abolishing
substantial time lost in seeking information and
finding drawings. Being a once-off payment, the cost
is so small as to be negligible. The draughtsmen feel
that their involvement in this scheme would warrant at
least a payment of #450, bearing in mind that the
original #450 was paid in June, 1984.
Bord's arguments:
5 (a) The nature of the technology now being introduced into
the drawing office and its effect on the work of the
draughtsmen bears no relation to that which is required
in the clerical area. The agreement negotiated with
the clerical staff formed part of their 23rd round wage
agreement and involved changing to on-line
computerisation with consequential reduction of the
clerical staff by 10% and a complete change in the
nature of their work. No such change in work practices
of draughtsmen is required from the technology being
introduced. Neither will there be any redundancies as
a result of its introduction.
(b) The new system is intended to improve the filing and
retrieval of drawings and it in no way changes the
nature of the draughtsmens' work on the drawing boards.
Indeed, the computerised filing system could only be
considered as part of what was already paid for under
their 23rd round agreement. In accepting the special
increases in that agreement the draughtsmen
acknowledged their acceptance of ongoing changes.
(c) The Bord did propose that the draughtsmen be given the
same settlement which was given to other members of the
Union in the engineering, technical and administrative
grades for a similar claim i.e. a once-off 4 days
annual leave.
(d) The draughtsmen have already been compensated for the
changes now being made.
(e) The Bord's proposal to concede a once-off four days
annual leave is fair and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the circumstances in this case the Court is
of the opinion that the draughtsmen should receive the same
compensation as other workers similarly affected and therefore
recommends that they should accept the Company's offer of 4 days
leave.
~ Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
Deputy Chairman
14thJuly, 1987
T.O'M/J.C.