Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87192 Case Number: LCR11246 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ECCO LTD - and - ETU;AEU;NEETU |
1, Dispute concerning the introduction of a new computerised clock-in system.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both
parties, and noting the Company's undertaking to produce a daily
print-out if required recommends that the claimants co-operate
with the new computerised clock-in system.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87192 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11246
CC87123 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11246
Parties: ECCO LIMITED
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION,
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION AND
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
Subject:
1, Dispute concerning the introduction of a new computerised
clock-in system.
Background:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the GE/RCA Solid
State Division of General Electric (U.S.A.) and employs
approximately 400 workers. The Company is situated in Dundalk and
manufactures discrete semiconductors for the U.S. and European
markets. In early 1986 the Company decided to replace the manual
clock-in system (which had been in operation since 1966 for the
hourly paid workers) with a new computerised payroll system. The
new system would enable instant calculations and simplify the
payment of wages. All the unions' were informed of the
implementation of the system and they agreed to participate in a
trial run. In September, 1986 the new system was deemed live and
the workers were issued with new clock-in cards and were requested
to cease using their old manual clock cards. The union
representing the production workers accepted the new system but
the Unions' representing the skilled workers did not and requested
a return to the old system. The Company agreed to this request.
A number of meetings took place at local level to try to resolve
the differences without success. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 19th January, 1987. A
conciliation conference was held on 3rd March, 1987 at which no
agreement was possible. Both parties agreed to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Dundalk on 19th May, 1987.
Company's argument:
3. (a) The Company has been extremely patient in exercising
their restraint with the skilled group in implementing
this new system. At all stages there has been lengthy
consultation and every aspect of the new system has
been explained in great detail. The Company had
offered to make print-outs available each morning for
information purposes and continues to make this offer
to the group. New technology is a necessity for our
business and as the new system has no adverse impact on
the individual, the Company would request that the
Court recommends the Unions' to co-operate fully with
the implementation of this new system.
Unions' arguments:
4. (i) To enable this system to operate successfully requires
the co-operation of the workers involved, in this case
the craftsmen. The Company fully expect that this
co-operation should be automatic, but when the workers
put forward reasonable proposals to management they
are invariably turned down. One item in particular
being wherein the Company unilaterally introduced a
method of payment of wages by cheque and then refused,
following representation by the Unions, to allow the
workers a 15-minute period to encash these cheques
because they were firstly, illegal, and secondly, the
drawing of the cheques was presenting difficulties.
(ii) The workers feel that because this is a computerised
system they do not have the facility which the long
established manual system had, of being able to
automatically check their hours and consequently the
wages which would be due at any given period during
the week including the calculation of overtime. As
this new system is fed back to a computer it would be
necessary for our members to seek this information
from the computer. The workers see this as a backward
step as far as they are concerned although the Company
might view it differently and no doubt it can accrue
considerable savings. Therefore the refusal of our
members to co-operate hinges mainly on the Company's
refusal to be co-operative with the craftsmen but
expecting co-operation from them.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both
parties, and noting the Company's undertaking to produce a daily
print-out if required recommends that the claimants co-operate
with the new computerised clock-in system.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___19th__June,__1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
From: FARRELL 19-JUN-1987 15:50