Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9078 Case Number: LCR12868 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BOART HARD METALS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the application of an annual attendance bonus scheme for clerical staff.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and in
particular the background to the introduction of the attendance
bonus the Court is not convinced that any basis exists for the
payment of a compensatary amount to the claimants on foot of their
acceptance of the "keying-in" procedure. The Court consequently
does not recommend concession of the claim.
In rejecting the claim the Court is aware that the acceptance of
the procedure still remains an option to the claimants and while
it was only requested to adjudicate on the monetary claim the
Court is of the opinion that the offer put forward by the Company
in relation to 1990 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances
and should be availed of by the workers concerned.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9078 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12868
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BOART HARD METALS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the application of an annual attendance
bonus scheme for clerical staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based at Shannon Industrial Estate and has
approximately two hundred employees. In 1984 the Company offered
to introduce an annual attendance bonus scheme (details supplied
to the Court). One of the rules applying to the scheme is that
all participating members must use the Company's official time
recording systems. The production workers, who were already
"clocking in", accepted the scheme. The clerical staff
represented by the Union rejected the proposals on the grounds
that they were being asked to accept a formalised "key in" system,
whereas the general workforce who already used the "clock-in"
system were not required to concede anything. In 1988 the Company
again offered the scheme to clerical staff provided they agreed to
"keying-in". The Company proposed that if the staff commenced to
"key-in" from November, 1988 they would be paid the bonus as if
they entered the scheme in December, 1987. The Company also
offered to introduce the scheme on a trial basis from December,
1988 to November, 1989. This offer was rejected by the Union who
sought a compensation payment of #1,000 for each worker for
"keying-in" and retrospective payment of bonus to 1984. This
claim was rejected by the Company and as no agreement was reached
at local level the matter was referred on 6th December, 1989 to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 18th January, 1990 at which no agreement
was reached and the matter was referred on 30th January, 1990 to a
full hearing of the Labour Court which was held in Limerick on
10th April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. One of the conditions of employment of clerical staff is
that formalised recording of time keeping is not required.
The clerical staff concerned are being asked to concede this
well established principle in order to qualify for the annual
attendance bonus scheme.
2. The production workers who accepted the scheme in 1984
already used the "clock-in" system and consequently were not
asked to concede anything. The clerical staff should be able
to join the scheme without making the concession of
"keying-in".
3. Despite the fact that the Company claims that this is a
voluntary scheme, it is a condition for promotion that staff
accept the Company's policy to "key-in".
4. The Union has modified its position to assist a resolution
of the dispute by indicating that a lump sum payment of #1,000
for each staff member would be acceptable for the introduction
of "keying-in". The attendance bonus without pre-conditions
should be applied from the original introduction date of 1984.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company rejects the claim that "keying-in" is a change
in the conditions of employment of clerical staff.
"Keying-in" for time recording purposes is a requirement only
for eligibility to participate in the attendance bonus scheme.
The Company accepts the decision of some staff members not to
participate in the scheme.
2. The Company is not prepared to pay any compensation to the
staff concerned on the following grounds:-
(a) At the time of introduction of the scheme in 1984 the
staff concerned voted against entering the scheme.
(b) Those employees who voted to come onto the scheme in
1984 received no compensation.
(c) Those who decided to participate in the scheme
subsequently and are now keying-in did not receive
compensation.
3. Any decision to pay compensation to the staff concerned
could have repercussive effects.
4. Should the staff concerned decide to change their position
and accept the conditions which apply to the scheme the
Company is prepared to have them participate in the 1990
attendance bonus scheme (which runs from 1st December, 1989 to
30th November, 1990) on the basis that applied in 1984.