Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89465 Case Number: LCR12511 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SMITHWICK AND SONS LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Company concerning the co-operation of craftsmen with a computer aided maintenance system.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the submissions made, the Court has come to
the conclusion that the matter in dispute is more appropriate for
discussion within the overall rationalisation plans envisaged by
the Company and so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89465 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12511
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SMITHWICK AND SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Company concerning the co-operation of craftsmen
with a computer aided maintenance system.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company wishes to introduce a planned maintenance system
with the aid of computers. The Company argues that the craftsmen
are already in receipt of an ongoing special payment for
co-operation with this type of change. An agreement dated 24th
September, 1984, states in clause 3:-
" Co-operation in the introduction of computerised
stores system and improved computerised information
systems on plant data and reliability."
The Union rejects the Company's position stating that the 1984
agreement makes absolutely no reference to a computerised planned
maintenance system and that it is specified in all agreements that
the introduction of new technology must be by agreement. As
agreement could not be reached the matter was referred on 28th
March, 1989, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
3rd May, 1989, and the matter was referred on 22nd June, 1989, to
the Labour Court. The Court investigated the dispute on 12th
July, 1989, in Clonmel.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The future of the Company depends on efficient operation
and for this reason it is necessary to upgrade the maintenance
information systems. Such upgrading has taken place
throughout the plant. The craftsmen are already in receipt of
an ongoing payment for this type of co-operation. It is a
condition of ongoing wage increases that employees co-operate
with change and new technology.
3. 2. The new system is being used by the Union to try and
advance a claim for parity, which has already been rejected by
the Court. (See L.C.R. 11910). This approach of obstructing
necessary change in order to pursue a claim which has no merit
can only damage the employment prospects of the craftsmen, and
indeed other workers. The craftsmen themselves recognise the
need to upgrade the systems.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the 1984 Agreement was drawn up there was no
reference to a computerised planned maintenance system. All
agreements entered into by the Union state that the
introduction of new technology must be by agreement. The
Union did agree to a planned maintenance system known as the
Maynards System some 15 years ago. The Union has adhered to
that agreement up to the time of its demise. A further
agreement of November, 1988, states:-
" Your continued co-operation with agreed ongoing change
and new technology"
The present dispute arises from the fact that agreement cannot
be reached.
2. The Union is not opposed to the Company's proposals in
principle but feel that any input by the craftsmen into this
technology should be rewarded. The Company's contention that
this would be recognised in a new proposed maintenance scheme
in their overall rationalisation plan is not acceptable to the
Union.
3. For some time past, craftsmens rates of pay in the Company
have been falling behind those of other breweries as a result
of the other craftsmen receiving payments for changes in
working practices and technology. The Union can only improve
rates in the Company if acceptable terms for co-operation and
participation in maintenance schemes can be negotiated. The
Union believes the Company should sit down and negotiate a
monetary settlement in return for co-operation with the new
scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the submissions made, the Court has come to
the conclusion that the matter in dispute is more appropriate for
discussion within the overall rationalisation plans envisaged by
the Company and so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___11th___August,___1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman