FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Introduction of new technology in the back stores.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987 and 1988 the Company concluded an agreement with the Unions I.D.A.T.U. and I.N.U.V.G.A.T.A. (now merged to form MANDATE) on the introduction of scanning systems into its stores. The Company agreed to increase the Christmas bonus from a half week's basic pay to a full week's basic pay on an ongoing basis for all staff concerned, including the Goods Receiving Staff in the back stores. Check-out scanning commenced in 1988, and between 1989 and 1991 hand held scanners were introduced on to the shop floor. In 1989 back door scanning of deliveries was pilot tested in Quinnsworth, Artane, but was abandoned after 18 months. In 1995, following a review of the system, the Company re-introduced back door scanning.
The Union claims that the new technology was not part of the 1987/88 agreement and is seeking an increase in the rates of pay for Goods Receiving Staff to reflect changes in work practices, added responsibilities and increased productivity. As agreement could not be reached at local level the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 5th September, 1996 but, again, agreement could not be reached. The issue was referred to the Labour Court on 8th October, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 4th December, 1996, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Back stores personnel fully co-operated with the introduction of a computerised terminal at the back door in 1988. This was covered by the 1987/88 agreement and was compensated for by an increase in the Christmas bonus. It would have been impossible to negotiate a deal in 1988 relating to technology which would not be introduced until seven years later.
2. The use of automated checking is more labour intensive and time consuming than previous work practices. Staff are now responsible for the maintenance and safekeeping of the hand held terminals, while a recent systems failure has also placed an additional burden on staff to individually type into the system all items delivered during the malfunction.
3. The Company will benefit from considerable savings as a result of the introduction of new technology, while up to thirty clerical staff in head office have been made redundant. The Union is prepared to co-operate with a third party evaluation of the jobs concerned if necessary.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company/Union technology agreement of 1987/88 covered all scanning, including back door scanning, and the additional bonus payments have been made to the back stores personnel from the outset. The Union did not raise this issue when back door scanning was pilot tested for 18 months in 1989/90.
2. The rates of pay applicable to the staff concerned are agreed at the Dublin Joint Industrial Council. However, the staff are already paid well in excess of these rates.
3. The introduction of scanning has not changed the basic nature and level of responsibility of the Goods Receiving Chargehand's job. The recording method has simply been enhanced and has greatly reduced the paperwork content of the job. Neither the earning levels nor the job security of the staff concerned has been adversely affected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has concluded that the technology proposed in this instance comes within the ambit of the 1987/88 agreement.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
20th December, 1996______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.