Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90227 Case Number: LCR12926 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH TIMES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a direct debit payment system.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is satisfied that having regard to the matter of
implementation of the Direct Debit system, and its impact on the
staff concerned, that it properly falls to be dealt with under
Clause 20 of the 1981 Agreement and not within the context of a
proposed new Agreement.
Having regard to the level of consultation which has already taken
place with the staff concerned the Court therefore recommends that
the system as proposed by Management be implemented without
further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90227 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12926
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH TIMES LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a direct debit payment
system.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1989 the Company proposed to introduce a direct
debit system of payment in respect of new accounts and defaulters.
The Union objected to its introduction on the basis that there had
been no prior discussion and the system had major implications as
regards employment conditions for the eleven circulation
representatives and some clerical staff employed in the accounts
section. The Union also indicated that there was no agreement on
same and that it would be prepared to negotiate on the new system
within the context of the Company's proposals on new
technology/change. The Company contend that the introduction of
the new system falls within clause 20 of the Company/Union
Productivity Agreement dealing with computerisation. The changes
were of an administrative nature, and when the staff were first
notified they raised no objection and participated in the setting
up of the new system. Meetings at local level failed to resolve
the issue and the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on 7th February, 1990. A conciliation
conference was held on 9th April, 1990. As no agreement was
reached the parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
7th June, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is introducing the direct debit system to
improve cash flow, reduce bad debt and reduce the risk to
those carrying cash. The system will be phased in over a
number of years. The introduction of the system is a routine
administrative change and is covered under existing
Productivity Agreement, Clause 20 of which states:-
"Computerisation
Employees shall co-operate in the implementation of
computerisation unless it can be clearly proved that
introduction, improvements or additions adversely affect
the employee(s) concerned either in terms of conditions or
health."
In refusing to co-operate with the introduction of the system
the Union are in breach of this agreement.
2. The workers concerned were aware of the proposal at least
a year before the system was introduced. The Computer
Department/Staff co-operated and worked on programming, file
set-up, testing and planning for implementation without any
indication that this co-operation would not continue.
Likewise the circulation representatives and the circulation
accounts staff were kept fully informed and gave no indication
that they would not co-operate. The first indication was
given to the Company during the week of implementation when
the workers informed Management that they would not co-operate
as per a Union instruction. The Company gave assurances on
conditions as laid out in Clause 20 and confirmed the
introduction of the system would not reduce staff numbers.
3. The total number of Newsagents' accounts is 3,250
approximately, of which it is estimated that approximately 10%
would be on the system by the end of 1990. New customers
receiving supplies must be bound into a contract of direct
debit from commencement. Any delay in its implementation will
lead to difficulties in enforcing these contracts.
4. The Company considers the Union's non-co-operation is an
attempt to force the Company to negotiate a new agreement
under duress by specifically linking Direct Debits to new
agreement talk.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. This is a very serious issue for the workers concerned as
it affects both job security and job content - not only for
circulation representatives but also clerical and support
staff. It is not a minor or routine change as Management have
sought to categorise it. Indeed if it were such a minor
event, then Management would not have felt constrained to give
assurances about job security.
2. There is no agreement existing which provides for direct
debit, therefore this is not a case of Breach of Agreement.
In fact there appears to be considerable confusion in the
Management position on this issue. In December they said it
was a "Management decision and responsibility" with no mention
of any agreement. Now they are talking about "Breach of
Agreement." Management are aware that this has never been
agreed with the Union.
3. The Union is not opposed to discussing the question of
direct debit with Management. However it is insisting, as per
agreement reached in October, 1989, that it be discussed
within the context of Management's overall plans on new
technology. Management have already completed new technology
negotiations with the I.P.U. and are currently engaged in new
technology discussions with N.U.J. and N.G.A. None of these
unions have been expected to negotiate piecemeal and the
workers here concerned are entitled to be treated no
differently.
4. When the issue of direct debit has been raised in the
other National Newspapers it has done so within the context of
overall negotiations on new technology/change (details
supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is satisfied that having regard to the matter of
implementation of the Direct Debit system, and its impact on the
staff concerned, that it properly falls to be dealt with under
Clause 20 of the 1981 Agreement and not within the context of a
proposed new Agreement.
Having regard to the level of consultation which has already taken
place with the staff concerned the Court therefore recommends that
the system as proposed by Management be implemented without
further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________________
22nd June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.