Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87888 Case Number: LCR11661 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CALOR KOSANGAS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (ACTSS;SALES, MARKETING & ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim for an 8.50% increase for the introduction of new technology.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is not satisfied that the impact of new technology on the
claimants is such at present as would warrant the extension of the
technology agreement to them.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87888 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11661
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CALOR KOSANGAS
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (ACTSS)
SALES, MARKETING & ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an 8.50% increase for the introduction of new
technology.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns 15 domestic and 13 industrial sales
representatives. The Unions are claiming, on their behalf, the
payment of an 8.50% increase for the introduction of new technology.
Following negotiations from 1980 to 1984 agreement was reached
whereby clerical and administrative staff were paid an 8.50%
technology payment. A similar payment was applied to field
managers with effect from June, 1986 following a claim from the
Unions in 1985. Towards the end of 1986 the Unions claim that the
technology payment should be applied to the sales representatives.
The Company rejected the claim. No agreement was reached through
local negotiations and on 13th February, 1987 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 23rd April, 1987 but no
agreement was reached and on 10th November, 1987 the Unions
requested that a reference be made to the Court. The Company
agreed to such a reference and on 18th November, 1987 the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 14th January, 1988, hearings
arranged for earlier dates had proved unsuitable to one or other
of the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company applied this increase across the board to all
administrative staff, including managers, regardless of
whether the technology affected their work. In subsequently
agreeing to pay the field managers the Company did so on the
same basis; and again, on the clear understanding that they
were getting carte blanche in the total introduction of
technology within the Company.
2. The sales representatives claim for the increase is valid
as the Company expects them to co-operate with new
documentation produced by the computer. They are, in fact, in
a situation where it will be impossible to do their job
without being affected in some way or other by technology.
3. 3. In 1982/83 the Company advised the Unions that it intended
introducing new technology to make the Company more efficient.
It stated it would pay an increase to clerical staff and
managers regardless of how the technology impinged on the
work. In October, 1984 it was agreed that an 8.50% increase
would be appropriate. The wording of the agreement was
intended to exclude field managers. However those workers
pursued a claim and eventually succeeded in obtaining the
increase with effect from 1st June, 1986. This technology
payment should now also be applied to the sales
representatives.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement reached with clerical and administrative
workers in 1984 was specifically confined to the
administration area, where reductions in the workforce have
taken place and the remaining clericals are required to share
re-distributed workloads. The 8.50% technology payment was
given in return for the total acceptance of the introduction
of the new technology in the administrative area alone. The
new technology was not designed or expected to result in any
measurable change in the sales representatives working
practices.
2. Concession of this claim would have 'knock-on' extension
of the technology payments to other categories of workers
employed as field staff. This would involve a substantial
extra cost for the Company.
3. The cost of conceding this claim would be #53,000 per
annum on the sales representatives salary bill. The probable
further "knock-on" extension to the remaining staff would cost
approximately #464,548 per annum. This would mean a total
increase in the annual wages/salaries bill of over #.5
million.
4. There is no comparison between the work functions and
rates of pay of administrative staff and sales
representatives. No reduction in staff or measurable changes
of a similar nature were called for by the Company or have
taken place in the sales representatives area as a result of
the new technology. This was not the case in the
clerical/administration area. Measures on remuneration of
such magnitude as would result from this claim cannot be
conceded by the Company without major changes in the staffing
levels and method of work of the sales representatives.
5. The sales representatives already enjoy enhanced salaries.
The present claim, based on the grounds that a justifiable
technology payment was negotiated for the clerical staff in
return for major changes peculiar to the clerical area, is
illogical and unsustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is not satisfied that the impact of new technology on the
claimants is such at present as would warrant the extension of the
technology agreement to them.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___28th___January,___1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman