Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88779 Case Number: LCR12115 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JOHN PLAYER & SONS - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the proposed contracting out of the Company's payroll process.
Recommendation:
5. In view of the Company's assurance that the contracting out of
the Company payroll process will not result in any staff
reductions, the Court recommends that the Union accept its
introduction.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88779 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12115
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: JOHN PLAYER & SONS
and
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed contracting out of the
Company's payroll process.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company and Union are presently discussing a programme of
rationalisation/new technology. As part of this programme,
Management proposed to contract out the Company's payroll
processing on a bureau basis, while retaining on site the
preparation of the payroll input data. This was not acceptable to
the Union and following disagreement at local level, the Company
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 29th July, 1988. A conciliation conference was held
on the 31st August, at which no agreement was reached. On the
20th September, the Company requested the dispute be referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation and on the
18th October, the Union agreed to the referral. A Court hearing
took place on the 3rd November, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Company's present payroll computer facilities, which have
been in existence for approximately 20 years, consist of
three separate unrelated systems for wages, salaries and
pensions. Each system has its own specific amendment
programme. To keep abreast of up-to-date computing
requirements these systems have literally been patched-up in
an ad hoc manner over the years. Consequently, an inordinate
amount of time, relative to its overall computer function, is
required for the maintenance of these systems. Towards the
beginning of this year an in-house Payroll/Personnel System
Project Committee was established to examine the feasibility
of setting up a modern integrated streamlined system with a
common amendment programme for wages, salaries and pensions,
and with the facility to extract information for personnel
purposes. Various proposals and options were considered at
length. Arising from the Committee's recommendations, the
Company, subject to consultation and agreement with the
clerical staff, decided to adopt the CARA bureau package as
the one best suited to meet its particular requirements.
3.2 The Company considers that the change sought in payroll is
minor in terms of total computer operations. Effectively it
will mean an overall saving of approximately 10 hours per
month, i.e. 1.50 hours per week for wages and 3 hours per month
for salaries/pensions, in processing time. Ad hoc programmer
involvement in responding to systems breakdown and user
queries, amounting to approximately a half to one day per
week, will be eliminated. These aforementioned savings can
and will be used to facilitate greater concentration on the
sales system which, after all, is the Company's mainstay. In
addition, some reduction in clerical effort on the part of
payroll staff is anticipated with the use of the proposed new
payroll package.
3.3 The Company fully understands and appreciates the fears and
anxieties expressed by staff regarding contracting out per
se, particularly in a situation where re-organisation and
rationalisation is taking place. However, it has been
pointed out, on numerous occasions, that the contracting out
of payroll processing will not result in any staff
reductions.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company's clerical staff have had to suffer the effects
of a reducing workforce for the last number of years.
Vacancies which have arisen have either not been filled or
filled on a temporary basis with the resultant disruption and
additional work involved. Notwithstanding these difficulties
they have continued full co-operation and facilitated
Management in every way.
4.2 In the last 12 months the Company has embarked on a major
technology programme which has seen the purchase of a new
mainframe computer and an increase in the number of VDU's
from 7 to 27. This push on technology has lead to pressure
on the resources in the computer and punch areas which were
reduced under the on-going staff cutting exercise. There has
also been pressure for time on the mainframe in order to
computerise the Company's various sections.
4.3 The Company is seeking the contracting out of the payroll
processing system in order to gain more time on its mainframe
and to offset some of the difficulties which arise with staff
shortages in the area. It should be noted that there has
never been any problem with the payroll processing system to
date and staff have always been paid on time. Therefore,
Management are merely contracting out because of convenience
and to cover up for problems which it has created itself.
The Union is totally opposed to this proposal because it
represents work leaving the Company at a time when staff
numbers are falling. The Union cannot accept the loss of any
work no matter how small in a situation where long-term job
security is poor as a result of rationalisation and
technology. As much work as possible must be kept within the
Company.
4.4 The contracting out is unnecessary as by the Company's own
admission there will be no cost savings and the present
system has never failed. Indeed through information gained
from a non-personnel management source it is the Union's
understanding that the present system could be updated to
give the required result without any contracting out. In the
circumstances the Union urges the Court to find against the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In view of the Company's assurance that the contracting out of
the Company payroll process will not result in any staff
reductions, the Court recommends that the Union accept its
introduction.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th November, 1988 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG Deputy Chairman