Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89818 Case Number: LCR12682 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SCULLY TYRRELL AND COMPANY - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 4 typists concerning a work load monitoring system in the Dublin office.
Recommendation:
4. The Court recommends that the Company meets the Union without
further delay to discuss the operation of the monitoring system.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89818 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12682
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: SCULLY TYRRELL AND COMPANY
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 4 typists concerning a work
load monitoring system in the Dublin office.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is a firm of chartered loss adjusters,
employs approximately 23 people in its Dublin office. Towards the
end of April, 1989, a work monitoring system, which centred on the
typing pool tapes, was introduced (details supplied to the Court).
It took no account of the level of work being done by typists for
their designated partner. The Union members of staff were only
informed by a non Union member of staff of the monitoring system
one week after its introduction. At a meeting with the Company on
10th May, 1989, the workers concerned expressed their concern at
developments and the fact that no prior consultation had taken
place. The monitoring system was further extended to cover all
types of work and a situation arose whereby offers were made to
typists to mark them down for two tapes if they typed an urgent
one. Thus the system of monitoring introduced difficulties and
was open to abuse. On the 24th May, 1989, the Union wrote to the
Company seeking a meeting to discuss the matter. No response was
received. The Union wrote again on 4th August, 1989. The Company
did not respond. On 12th September, 1989, the Union referred the
matter to the conciliation service of the Labour Court, however,
the Company declined an invitation from an Industrial Relations
Officer to attend a conciliation conference. On 7th November,
1989, the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's
investigation of the matter on 30th November, 1989, the Union
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union suspects that the monitoring system is basically
flawed and that it is not a fair method of assessing work
output. It took no account of work in the pool prior to the
introduction of the monitoring (details supplied to the
Court). The 4 typists involved were deeply concerned about
the attempt to secretly monitor their work, especially since
none of them had ever been approached about their work output
before and because they were coping with a shortage of one
typist who had left in April, 1989.
2. The Union feels that there is a need to discuss with the
Company, all the issues regarding the monitoring, its results
and future work practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court recommends that the Company meets the Union without
further delay to discuss the operation of the monitoring system.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
11th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.