Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93426 Case Number: LCR14160 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SECURICOR IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for ongoing payment arising from the introduction of a Bar-Coding System.
Recommendation:
5. In the context of the proposals to introduce an entirely new
system, as proposed by the Company, the Court is not, nor indeed
are the parties, in a position to make a final judgement on this
matter. On the basis of the evidence of the submissions made and
the additional information supplied at the hearing, the Court
could not at this stage come to the conclusion that an additional
burden would be placed on the claimants through the introduction
of the system proposed, nor could it determine that the Company
would enjoy increased productivity arising from its introduction.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union agree immediately
that the new system will be operated as soon as it is available.
The Court further recommends that after a period of six months of
its operation, the Union would be free to re-introduce a claim for
compensation should they feel they can sustain a case that
additional usable productivity has resulted for the Company. That
claim would fall to be dealt with under Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.), or otherwise if at
the time of the claim, the P.E.S.P. had expired in the Company.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93426 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14160
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SECURICOR IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for ongoing payment arising from
the introduction of a Bar-Coding System.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has two main operating divisions: a Security
Services Division and a Parcels Division. It employs over 800
workers and has branches throughout the country. The dispute
concerns a claim by 52 Cash-in-Transit (C.I.T.) staff employed at
the Dublin Branch in Rialto, for an ongoing payment as
compensation for the introduction of bar-coding. (All bags of
money handled by the Company will be bar-coded thereby eliminating
receipt writing and large amounts of paperwork).
The Union's claim for an ongoing payment is on the basis that the
new system will lead to time savings and resultant increased
productivity for the Company. The Union indicated that the claim
could be considered under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The Company's position is that
the C.I.T. business is currently a loss-maker and that the new
system will increase competitiveness and secure the Company's
future. Insofar as Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. is concerned, the
Company indicated its intention to negotiate nationally with the
Union. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
on the 13th of July, 1993, at which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th of July,
1993 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 27th July,
1993 and issued its Recommendation by letter to the parties on the
30th of July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new system will streamline C.I.T. operations, saving
time and ensuring that all information is accurately recorded
and instantly available. This extra efficiency will enable
the Company to engage in extra transactions.
2. The claim is reasonable. There will be new work-practices
arising from the changeover from the manual system to a fully
computerised system. Workers will be responsible for the
operation of the computer and for the manual input of data.
3. The introduction of the new system will require the
comprehensive training of workers who in turn will be
responsible for the training of new recruits.
4. The new system will give the Company the competitive edge
over rivals in the C.I.T. business.
5. The proposed change can be adequately addressed under
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. Ongoing payments have been made in
settlement of claims following the introduction of new
technology in many other companies (details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There should be no compensation for the introduction of
bar-coding because it will make the job easier and reduce
responsibility for C.I.T. staff, and will improve their
security of employment. Bar-coding has been introduced in
other companies without compensation. Change, particularly
'new technology,' is an ongoing feature in modern
organisations and compensation for such change is not
appropriate. Concession of the claim would set an
unacceptable precedent.
2. Ongoing compensation should not be conceded because
(i) training for bar-coding will be given on a
once-off basis,
(ii) the trial period involving seven C.I.T. staff
has shown that the job will be made easier,
(iii) the Company cannot afford an ongoing payment
as the C.I.T. business is loss-making
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The claim is not appropriate to Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
because
(i) Clause 3 is a national issue, whereas the
bar-coding concerns Dublin staff only and
would create anomalies among C.I.T. staff
nationally,
(ii) Bar-coding will not result in any improved
productivity or other cost reduction to offset
the cost of additional payments to staff.
4. Concession of the claim would have a knock-on effect in
relation to other staff. The Company has been notified that
any concession to the C.I.T. section will sought by other
sections.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the context of the proposals to introduce an entirely new
system, as proposed by the Company, the Court is not, nor indeed
are the parties, in a position to make a final judgement on this
matter. On the basis of the evidence of the submissions made and
the additional information supplied at the hearing, the Court
could not at this stage come to the conclusion that an additional
burden would be placed on the claimants through the introduction
of the system proposed, nor could it determine that the Company
would enjoy increased productivity arising from its introduction.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union agree immediately
that the new system will be operated as soon as it is available.
The Court further recommends that after a period of six months of
its operation, the Union would be free to re-introduce a claim for
compensation should they feel they can sustain a case that
additional usable productivity has resulted for the Company. That
claim would fall to be dealt with under Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.), or otherwise if at
the time of the claim, the P.E.S.P. had expired in the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
17th August, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.