Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9530 Case Number: LCR14688 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: HOWMEDICA INTERNATIONAL (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 274 general operatives for a 'lead in' payment and for an increase in their weekly rate of pay.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions and has noted the commitments
made in the '84/86 and 1987 agreements and further is satisfied
that the terms of the PCW must be adhered to also.
Whilst the parties agreed that bar coding would be proceeded with
they accepted that in the absence of specific information on the
system to be used they were unable to decide at that time if it
would be covered by the agreements referred to above. The Company
accepted that the Union reserved the right to take the view that
bar coding was not covered and to process a claim accordingly.
It is clear to the Court that the impact of bar coding in terms
of labour and cost savings is not yet known and it is accepted
that the evaluation which was carried out by the Union's industrial
engineer was only able to assess it in the most general terms and
is, understandably, not helpful to the resolution of the case.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that bar coding be introduced
and operated as required by the Company.
The parties should then monitor the effect of its operation and
evaluate the cost benefit of its introduction over a period of 12
months (the Court has noted the submission by the Company that its
introduction is as an integral and normal element of total
quality, which it regards as essential to the maintenance of a
world class manufacturing environment in the health care sector)
and at that time agree whether or not the results fall within the
agreements set out in the first paragraph of this recommendation
and in particular the provisions of the PCW in regard to cost
increasing claims and developments or initiatives in keeping with
the requirement of the Company for competitiveness and
profitability. It is the view of the Court that this procedure
would be in line with the proposals made by the Industrial
Relations Officer in August, 1992 and accepted by the parties
(paragraph 16).
The Court considers that in the current economic climate it is
imperative that there is full and informed co-operation between
the employees and the management if employment is to be protected
and the Company is to be competitive. Given the rate of expansion
of technological change for this co-operation to be achieved and
the Company to operate in the most efficient and cost effective
manner it is necessary to ensure there is transparency and that
employees are fully involved in the process of making changes, and
the impact of such changes, in accord with Clause 7(ii) of the
PCW. The parties should put in place such arrangements as are
necessary to achieve this end and should if necessary use the
services of the Labour Relations Commission to achieve these
objectives.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9530 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14688
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
HOWMEDICA INTERNATIONAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 274 general operatives for a
'lead in' payment and for an increase in their weekly rate of
pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of medical
appliances and employ 450 workers. The dispute concerns 274
general operatives. The Company proposes to introduce a bar
coding system in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency
of certain work practices and ensure competitiveness. The
Company maintains that the improvements can be introduced
without any extra payments as there is no major change in
work practices and savings will not accrue. The Union on
behalf of the workers concerned is claiming a lump sum
payment plus an increase in the weekly wage. Management
rejects the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and conciliation conferences were held in October, 1994 and
January, 1995. Following the first conciliation conference
in October, 1994 bar coding was introduced on a pilot basis
in the H.D.P. department. Subsequently the Union's
industrial engineer conducted an examination of the pilot
scheme and following his report the Union's claim was
quantified as follows:-
(i) #1,000 net 'lead in' payment and
(ii) an increase of #14.25 per week to the workers concerned.
The Claim was rejected by Management. A further conciliation
conference was held on the 11th January, 1995 without
agreement being reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 16th January, 1995 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 27th January, 1995. A
letter recommendation was issued on the 22nd February, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of bar-coding is a significant change
in work practices and is not covered by existing
agreements. The workers concerned are entitled to
compensation in respect of co-operation with the change.
2. The Union's Industrial Engineer, having reviewed the
scheme, concluded that savings would accrue to the
Company as the new bar coding system resulted in fewer
errors during data entry, reduction in labour, enhanced
product quality and better customer service.
3. The Union is committed to the terms of the P.C.W. but
cannot concede that it covers all changes without
compensation. Other Companies have made payments to
their workers in return for co-operation with the
introduction of bar-coding.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's principal reason for introducing bar
coding is accuracy and improved standards. This is
essential in the industry within which Howmedica
operates. Errors leading to product mis-identification
cannot be allowed to occur. Bar coding exists in other
Howmedica plants and is widely used in industry.
2. The Company has paid the 3% special bargaining increase
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. At a conciliation
conference held in August, 1992 under the auspices of
the Labour Relations Commission the I.R.O. put forward a
set of proposals under which agreement was reached
between the parties providing for the introduction of
bar coding.
3. All grades of staff have co-operated with the on-going
change required by the market over the years.
Concession of this claim would give rise to
consequential claims from staff and craft groups.
4. The Union's claim is cost increasing and contrary to the
terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions and has noted the commitments
made in the '84/86 and 1987 agreements and further is satisfied
that the terms of the PCW must be adhered to also.
Whilst the parties agreed that bar coding would be proceeded with
they accepted that in the absence of specific information on the
system to be used they were unable to decide at that time if it
would be covered by the agreements referred to above. The Company
accepted that the Union reserved the right to take the view that
bar coding was not covered and to process a claim accordingly.
It is clear to the Court that the impact of bar coding in terms
of labour and cost savings is not yet known and it is accepted
that the evaluation which was carried out by the Union's industrial
engineer was only able to assess it in the most general terms and
is, understandably, not helpful to the resolution of the case.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that bar coding be introduced
and operated as required by the Company.
The parties should then monitor the effect of its operation and
evaluate the cost benefit of its introduction over a period of 12
months (the Court has noted the submission by the Company that its
introduction is as an integral and normal element of total
quality, which it regards as essential to the maintenance of a
world class manufacturing environment in the health care sector)
and at that time agree whether or not the results fall within the
agreements set out in the first paragraph of this recommendation
and in particular the provisions of the PCW in regard to cost
increasing claims and developments or initiatives in keeping with
the requirement of the Company for competitiveness and
profitability. It is the view of the Court that this procedure
would be in line with the proposals made by the Industrial
Relations Officer in August, 1992 and accepted by the parties
(paragraph 16).
The Court considers that in the current economic climate it is
imperative that there is full and informed co-operation between
the employees and the management if employment is to be protected
and the Company is to be competitive. Given the rate of expansion
of technological change for this co-operation to be achieved and
the Company to operate in the most efficient and cost effective
manner it is necessary to ensure there is transparency and that
employees are fully involved in the process of making changes, and
the impact of such changes, in accord with Clause 7(ii) of the
PCW. The parties should put in place such arrangements as are
necessary to achieve this end and should if necessary use the
services of the Labour Relations Commission to achieve these
objectives.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st March, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.