FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BULMERS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Introduction Of Cameras In Warehouse
BACKGROUND:
2. Bulmers Limited is located in Clonmel, Co. Tipperary. On site there are two manufacturing plants, one of which focuses on the cider products of Bulmers brand portfolio and other plant focusing on products distributed into global markets by C&C international. The range of drinks distributed includes wines and spirits. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union, on behalf of it's members ( herein referred to as the workers), and the Company regarding the installation and operation of security cameras in the warehouse. In May 2004, the workers, having noticed cables being installed in the area, made an enquiry to management as to the reasons behind it. Management's reply was that new alarm systems were being installed. The Workers, having heard subsequently that the cables were for cameras in their work area, contacted the Union in this regard. A meeting took place between the Union and the Company where the latter stated that it was the Insurance Company that had stipulated this was a requirement. The Union rejected this on the basis that the Company had adequate security and that cameras directly trained on workers was not acceptable. The Company's position was that employees in some areas, such as the Yard where trucks are loaded and unloaded, already work under cameras and have done for years without incident or complaint.
- 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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th September, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th April , 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The manner in which the Company dealt with this issue leaves a lot to be desired. Had the Company been honest and transparent from the beginning, the acrimony which has ensued would never have occured. The frustration and suspicion which was evident in the early stages of the issue became a major obstacle in attempting to resolve the problem. It was later discovered that the Company who had the franchise for installing the system had stipulated where the cameras would be located
2. The Unions contention is that once the Insurers insisted on cameras in certain locations, the Company seized upon the opportunity and in an opportunistic movement tried to use the Insurance Company to monitor the work performance of the workers.
3. It is the workers contention that the Company has more than adequate personnel in a Supervisory capacity in the warehouse to ensure that the product is protected. The cameras are not necessary in this area.COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a very valuable stock holdings and for this reason the 24 hour operation of cameras in the warehouses is a stipulation of the Company's insurance cover. The Company cannot dictate terms to their insurers and neither can they operate in any capacity whatsoever, without insurance cover.
2. Extensive guarantees have been given by the Company as to the purpose and use of the cameras in the warehouse. The draft Industrial Relations Officer proposal precluded the use of cameras for monitoring employee performance and for any disciplinary reason with the exception of theft. It also guaranteed that monitors/recordings from cameras would not be viewed by management other than in the context of an investigation of an incident of theft. With such guarantees, it could not be suggested that there are any 'ulterior motives' behind the installation of cameras in the warehouse.
3. Security cameras have been operating in some work areas for years, without incident, and also under protest in the warehouse for the past 6 months, again without incident.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case, the Court recommends as follows:
1) The Company should reaffirm its policy to communicate in a timely and positive manner with the Trade Unions at the plant on any necessary developments connected with aspects of security.
2) The comprehensive protocol as developed under the chairmanship of the senior IRO with the parties and as set out in the letter of 9th September, 2004, be adopted for usage of these cameras.
3) In the particular circumstances of this case, where inadequate communication has resulted in some damage being caused to what has previously been a good employment relationship, the Company should make a donation of €4,500 to a charity nominated by the staff in the department where the cameras are in use.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd April, 2005______________________
JOC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.