FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD CRYSTAL - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. The introduction of new clock/identity cards.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's existing clocking system is a manual one, which is out-dated and costly to manage. The Company now has a new on-line, computerised system ready to put in place. It has also decided, for security and other purposes, to introduce an identity card system, and the technology exists for the same card to double for both purposes.
The Union has no objection to the up-dating of the clocking system, which requires no change in how the system is operated. However it sees no requirement or necessity for identity cards, and has no desire to be responsible for Company property outside of work.
The Company considered the Union's position to be unreasonable in the light of the difficulties with security, i.e., "shrinkage" of up to £1m per annum and believes that the Union should co-operate with its security measures as they are initiated. The Company also anticipates the cards being developed for use in the Company shop or as a swipe card for parking.
The Union, is of the view that the cards will not solve the problem of shrinkage. However, it has offered to carry the cards, without photographs. The Company believes that without photographs the cards are practically ineffectual.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 4th of March, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd of May, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have no difficulty with co-operating with the Company's security proposals to reduce the risk of theft, however, they do not accept that they are responsible for the level of theft quoted by the Company.
2. The workers have no objection to the introduction of new clock-in cards. What they object to is the Company's insistence on identity cards, which must be carried at all times, and which carry the particular employee's photograph. The workers also object to being held responsible for Company property even when they are not on the Company premises.
3. The Union accepts that it is a reasonable objective to have an adequate security system in place and feels this can only be done with the full co-operation of the workforce. The Company's proposal does not have the full co-operation of the workforce. If the Company's proposal is implemented as it stands it will be totally ineffectual as the co-operation of the staff will not be forthcoming. They, the staff, have indicated quite clearly that the Union has no mandate on their behalf to agree that they should present themselves at particular locations to have their photographs taken for the purpose of being placed on a Company identity card. They feel this insistence by the Company on the proposal is an infringement of their civil liberties and, therefore, they will not comply under any circumstances.
4. The Union never entered any agreement with the Company on this proposal and does not accept the Company's position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The development of technology since the old system was introduced means that the technology available for such clocking/time -keeping control now can be used for other purposes. The Company should be free to maximise the use of such a system, provided the employees' rights are not diminished. This arrangement would be subject to a commitment by the Company to inform the Union before new features or uses are added to the card. The requirement to carry such cards whilst on site and to take them home imposes no additional burden of any consequence on the individual employee.
2. The Company has experienced considerable loss of product over recent years. The provision of identity cards for each employee would help improve security.
3. Some of the security staff are from outside the Company. The identity cards would assist them to recognise staff with whom they are not familiar.
4. Visitors to the Company (230,000 in 1995) are no longer guided in groups. The identity cards will enable managers to check if persons who visit restricted areas are visitors, or staff.
5. Experience outside the Company has shown that the incidences of staff losing or forgetting their cards are relatively rare. Notwithstanding this, the Company will put into place arrangements to facilitate the "signing in" of employees who forget their cards during the initial introductory period.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute, has concluded that the proposed introduction of Clock/Identity cardsby the Company is reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court notes that the requirement for each employee to retain the card, while on or off the Company premises, created in some people's minds an element of anxiety in that they were being held responsible for Company property, i.e., the card, at all times. Noting, however, the Company's attitude to the possibility of a worker losing or forgetting his/her card it appears to the Court that such anxieties are unfounded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
20th May, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.