FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLPHAR SERVICES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Technology payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In March/April, 2002, the Company advised staff of its intention to install new technology to replace the manual systems applicable in the warehouse. In May, 2002, the Union made a claim for a lump sum of €1,000 per person (there were 21-23 workers involved). The claim was rejected by the Company. Following a number of meetings, the Company made an offer of €5,130 which represented additional payment of €10 per hour on overtime (513 hours) worked in the 5-week period surrounding the implementation of the new system. The Union rejected this offer, stating that it understood from a previous meeting that each worker would receive €300 gross.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. At the conference, the Company increased its offer to €7,695 (representing 513 hours x €15 ) to be distributed as the workers concerned saw fit. Although recommended by both parties, the offer was rejected by the workers.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 23rd of January, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of April, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has benefited considerably from the introduction of the new technology.
2. The Company's offer to pay the money on an overtime basis was unfair as a number of people who use the new technology could not do overtime during the 5-week period.
3. The Company has in past years reviewed salaries for staff who agreed to the introduction of new technology.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had to introduce the new technology due to increased demands from customers.
2. The workers have been paid increases under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) for the introduction of new technology. It only agreed to pay additional money as it was under severe pressure to have the new equipment installed.
3. Whilst the new technology has benefited the Company, it has also made the workers' job easier. The offer made at conciliation was fair and generous.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the change at issue constitutes normal on-going change within the meaning of PPF.
Nonetheless, it is noted that the Company has made an offer at conciliation and the Court recommends that the offer be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th May, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.