Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87874 Case Number: LCR11626 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MASSER HAMMOND - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Introduction of Visual Display Units (V.D.U.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not accept that the operation of the computer
system as proposed by Management warrants an additional payment.
However in the interest of industrial harmony the Court recommends
an ex-gratia payment of #50 to each of the claimants concerned.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87874 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11626
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MASSER HAMMOND
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Introduction of Visual Display Units (V.D.U.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is part of the Smurfit Group is involved in
the catering equipment business, and is seeking to extend
computerisation into the spare parts and services department. The
Union on behalf of the workers concerned served the following
claim on the Company:-
Guarantee of no redundancy arising out of computerisation.
Guarantee of job security vis that existing staff would continue
to be the operators of the new system.
Proper health and safety standards for V.D.U. usage.
A 10% increase in salary for the workers contribution to the new
system.
Progress was made on all points except the last. The Company
would not concede monetary compensation as it contends that the
changes involved are minimal. Agreement was not reached at local
level, and on 25th September, 1987, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 15th October, 1987. No agreement was
reached, and on 16th November, 1987, the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 18th December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers are not opposed in principle to
computerisation or new technology, but in conformity with the
policy of the Union are seeking its introduction on mutually
acceptable terms which acknowledge the workers contribution to
new systems and the benefits which flow from same.
2. The workers have co-operated fully with the Company over
recent difficult years to ensure the viability of the Company
and to this end have accepted less favourable wage settlements
as well as the inconvenience and cost of a move of premises
with no compensation.
3. 3. The computerisation plan proposed by the Company is not
just the substitution of a VDU screen for a pencil and sheet
of paper as pretended by Management. Rather it is the
introduction of a new system with new demands workwise and
operator wise for the workers, and in which the workers will
be expected to play an increasingly developmental role
(details supplied to the Court). They will now be responsible
for the invoicing of counter sales currently being processed
by the accounts/computer department.
4. The Company will derive benefits directly from the workers
involvement in the new system (details supplied to the Court)
and also by the facility given to re-organise aspects of the
accounts and computer departments and the functions of the
spare parts manager.
5. The workers have quantified their claim for compensation
as 10% increase in salary based on contribution and benefits.
The Union indicated at conciliation its willingness to
negotiate on same in recognition of the fact that it would be
difficult to quantify absolutely the extent of the value of
some of the factors involved. This flexible approach not
withstanding, the workers are adamant that their proposed
involvement merits recognition in the manner recognised by a
wealth of computer related settlements in other companies,
including many arising from Labour Court Recommendations
(details supplied to Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes that continued development is
essential for the future survival of the Company. Part of
this development involves the introduction of this new
computer system. The amount of change involved in operating
the new system is minimal (details supplied to Court).
Employees in other departments are operating the system
without additional compensation.
4. 2. The Company will only survive if it has group support and
it adapts to ongoing change to allow it to compete. As
already stated, this notion has not only jeopardised our
parent Company's willingness to provide us with support, but
has questioned the merits of support and investment in a
Company whose employees are not willing to face the realities
of what it takes to survive in current market conditions. The
Company has provided an incentive scheme for the two people
involved in the dispute. The Company does not believe that
additional compensation is warranted by the new system and
asks the Court to find in its favour.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not accept that the operation of the computer
system as proposed by Management warrants an additional payment.
However in the interest of industrial harmony the Court recommends
an ex-gratia payment of #50 to each of the claimants concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
7th January, 1988 Evelyn Owens
P.F./M.F. Deputy Chairman