Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88878 Case Number: LCR12184 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RENAULT LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for a computer allowance for stores staff.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the fact that the use of V.D.U.'s has not
changed since first introduced into the stores the Court does not
consider the Union's case to be sustainable.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88878 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12184
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RENAULT LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a computer allowance for stores staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following computerisation, the Company agreed a 5% computer
allowance for office staff, who are also represented by the same
Union. The Union, on behalf of the stores workers, are seeking
the same allowance for stores staff on the grounds that the 10
workers concerned are also required to operate Visual Display
Units (V.D.Us) and to input material to the computer. The Company
rejected the claim on the grounds that the use of computers by the
office staff and the stores staff was in no way comparable.
Agreement could not be reached on the issue at local level, and on
26th September, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 17th October, 1988. No agreement was reached, and on 14th
November, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 12th December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned in this claim use V.D.Us on a daily
basis. There is a clear discrimination involved in paying the
clerical staff for using the computer, while denying this
payment to the stores workers. There is nothing in the
Union/Company agreement which obliges the worker's concerned
in this claim to use computers. A continued refusal by the
Company to concede the merit of the claim could give rise to a
situation where the V.D.Us would not be operated by stores
staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim is related to agreements reached with
the Union on behalf of clerical workers in 1981 and 1983.
Clerical computerisation was a total change in work practice
and skills required. This altered from a situation where
there was no computer use, to an almost 100% computer-based
workload. Their introduction led to significant increase in
the workload of those remaining, required very significant
retraining of clerical staff and resulted in large scale
redundancies. Stores staff have been operating V.D.U.'s since
before 1981, that is before the clerical agreements.
2. The stores operators use the V.D.U.'s only for enquiry
purposes replacing a manual cardex system and their use
actually makes the job of the stores staff easier. The basic
function of the stores staff have not altered in the last 8
years and the Company have no plans to implement further
computerisation in the stores.
3. The stores staff were very well aware of the clerical
claims negotiated by their Union in 1981 and 1983 but did not
pursue a similar claim at that stage nor subsequently, as the
different situation in the clerical area was clearly
understood by all.
4. The employment contracts of all employees concerned in the
claim operate only from November, 1986, as agreed through the
Union (details supplied to the Court). The contract they
accepted and operated was on the conditions and rates of pay
as existed in October, 1986 and that included the use of
V.D.U.'s.
5. Up to the summer of 1988 the V.D.U.'s operated by the
stores staff were located in an office adjacent to the stores
department. Since then the Company has moved to new premises
and the V.D.U.'s have been located in the stores. The Company
is prepared to relocate the V.D.U. terminals, again in an
office adjacent to the stores, if there is an objection to the
present arrangement. The Company can see no justification for
the Union's demand and would ask the Court to reject the
claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the fact that the use of V.D.U.'s has not
changed since first introduced into the stores the Court does not
consider the Union's case to be sustainable.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
22nd December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.