FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONCAST PRECAST LTD (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation for change of work practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the construction industry. The dispute before the Court relates to a claim for compensation by the Union on behalf of 12 lorry,11 van, and 5 cranesdrivers, for the introduction of a Global Positioning Satellite system (G.P.S.) and issues concerning a draft "Code of Practice" which has been drawn up. The Union claims that there are two unresolved issues regarding the Code of Practice, (i) GPS's data being used for calculating wages and (ii) GPS's data being used for disciplinary purposes. The Company confirms that "time sheets" will continue to be used for the calculation of wages and that GPS will only be used as a means of verifying the hours on timesheets. Information from the system will not be used for disciplinary purposes, but if there is a conflict of evidence GPS data may be used as clarification regarding a complaint. The Union raised health and safety concerns with the installation of GPS's in cranes. The Company maintains that they are necessary for data purposes.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. At conciliation the Company offered €200 compensation per person as a good will gesture. The Union rejected this as totally inadequate for the level of intrusion the new system would involve. The Union's claim is for €1,500 compensation per person. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th April, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd June, 2004 and again on the11th November, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union preference would be that the G.P.S. system would not be installed and that the status quo remains but the Company has made it clear that it needs the system in place to improve efficiencies in its operation.
2. The Union maintains that the new systems would be very intrusive on workers like "Big Brother" and are requesting compensation for this level of intrusion.
3.The Union are requesting that point 3 of the "Code of Practice", should read"Time sheets will continue to be used for the calculation of wages". They are requesting that the second part, "If necessary, the Company may use the electronic vehicle locating system as a means of verifying the hours on the timesheets"be removed as it could distort the reality of what is occurring in the workplace, i.e. vehicles can be parked up due to delays on site and this will reflect on the GPS system as the vehicle is stationary or inactive.
4. The Union are requesting compensation in the amount of €1,500 per person for the level of intrusion the new system will create.
5. The Registered Employment Agreement does not preclude companies from making in-house agreements with workers on new working systems.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company maintains that compensation is not warranted in this instance, that the new G.P.S. electronic device system is merely an upgrade of the current analogue system. It does not require any additional effort on behalf of the drivers and it does not represent any significant change in work practices.
2. The new system conforms with the new EU regulations on tachographs.
3.The Company confirms that "time sheets" will continue to be used for the calculation of wages and that GPS will only be used as a means of verifying the hours on timesheets. Information from the system will not be used for disciplinary purposes, but if there is a conflict of evidence GPS data may be used as clarification regarding a complaint.
4. Technology is continuously being updated and to pay compensation each time a system is updated would place a huge financial burden on the Company.
5. Under the terms of Sustaining Progress, the Union are precluded from making cost increasing claims.
6. Under the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement (REA) no restrictions should be placed on the use of new techniques and equipment and no extra payment should apply in these circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the work practice changes required with the introduction of the Global Positioning System is minimal.
The Court has considered the Union's concerns regarding the two outstanding issues in dispute in DraftCode of Practice for the Use of Electronic Vehicle Locating System. -Timesheets and Disciplinary Issues. The Court notes that the wording of these sections in the Code specifically refers to the fact that the system will only be used in both instances for verification/clarification purposes. Therefore, the Court takes the view that this wording offers protection to both parties and accordingly recommends that the draft code should be accepted by the Union.
Health and Safety concerns were raised by the Union with regard to the use of the systems in cranes, the Court recommends that these issues should be addressed without delay.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Company's gesture of goodwill should be increased to €300 per driver for the immediate implementation of the Global Position System in all vehicles.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th November, 2004______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.