Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93635 Case Number: LCR14398 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BAXTER HEALTHCARE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for increase in pay due to introduction of new technology.
Recommendation:
Given all the circumstances of this case, the Court considers,
given the pay structures which apply in the Company, that the
claim as made by the Union is not the appropriate means of
addressing the issue.
The Court is of the view that the parties should agree a
mechanism outside of the pay structure which will take account of
such circumstances as described in this case.
The Court notes the Company was disposed to discuss the
introduction of a merit scheme.
Thus the Court suggests that the parties consider the matter
further.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93635 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14398
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BAXTER HEALTHCARE
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for increase in pay due to introduction of new
technology.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a major manufacturer of healthcare products
and has been operating in Ireland since 1972. It employs 650
workers at its plant in Castlebar and 150 workers in
Swinford.
The dispute concerns 11 fork-lift drivers in the Castlebar
plant. In 1993, the Company opened a new 4,000 pallet
warehouse, introducing new forms of fork-lifts and racking
systems. The new system involves the use of computerisation.
The Union claims that the new equipment is more difficult to
operate and that the 11 workers concerned should be
compensated with a pay increase. The Company maintains that
there is very little difference in working with the new
equipment compared to the old.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 23rd September,
1993. No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on 9th November, 1993 under Section 26(1)
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place in Castlebar on 23rd February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new type of fork-lift introduced by the Company
involves both the truck and the driver moving with the load,
up to heights in excess of 30 feet. There is a great deal of
movement and swaying, which is stressful for the operators.
The operators also work in isolation for much of the day, due
to the new racking system which has very narrow aisles.
2. The new system is more dangerous due to the heights the
operators work at. Each fork-lift has to carry its own fire
extinguisher.
3. The workers involved have co-operated with the
introduction of the new system and computerisation, which has
resulted in more work for them. Other companies which have
introduced similar systems have compensated their workers.
The workers involved deserve a similar pay increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The idea of the new 4,000 pallet space warehouse is to
expand production in the existing building and to reduce
warehousing requirements in other countries. This is
necessary if the Company is to maintain competitiveness.
2. The workers involved have not experienced any greater
change to their work than any other group of workers in the
Company. Awarding a special pay increase to the workers
concerned would have a serious knock-on effect, involving
other workers, which the Company cannot afford.
3. The work involved with the new fork-lifts is easier than
under the old system.
4. The new Company / Union House Agreement precludes any
special pay increases which are cost increasing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given all the circumstances of this case, the Court considers,
given the pay structures which apply in the Company, that the
claim as made by the Union is not the appropriate means of
addressing the issue.
The Court is of the view that the parties should agree a
mechanism outside of the pay structure which will take account of
such circumstances as described in this case.
The Court notes the Company was disposed to discuss the
introduction of a merit scheme.
Thus the Court suggests that the parties consider the matter
further.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th April, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.