FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LUND INTERNATIONAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Introduction of electronic swipe card system.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Athlone, Co. Westmeath and manufactures cutting tools for engineering and advance materials usage. The dispute involves 9 foreman and maintenance personnel. The Company wish to extend the current electronic swipe card system to this group but the Unions are not agreeable to its introduction. All other production staff use the swipe system to record working time. The workers involved in the dispute record their times by completing a paper form and wish to continue using this system.
- 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 17th February 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Workers have enjoyed staff conditions in relation to clocking since the early 90's which was negotiated locally. To change now would be a retrograde step.
2. Introducing the proposed system would create a climate of low trust when there is no history of abuse of the present system of time sheets.
3. The Company should be moving away from these systems in order to create trust and goodwill amongst employees, instead of a Big Brother system.
4. The present system does comply with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company currently and has for some time operated an electronic swipe system in respect of all direct operators. These workers are also members of SIPTU.
2. The Company needs to know when the staff, including supervisors, come in and out of the building. The Union are trying to pretend that the Company is going to use the system to check up on the staff. This is not the case as they are paid a salary. This is not a time keeping exercise.
3. The Company needs the system to be on the premises for insurance reasons. Under the Health & Safety Act, together with the Organisation of Working Time Act, Management needs to keep a record of employees presence and hours in the building. The most efficient way of doing this is through swipe card system.
4. What the Company is looking at is perfectly reasonable and is standard practice in the industry. It is not an attempt for the Company to install a snooping device and is already in place for the production operators.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court can see no reasonable basis upon which the Union's principled objection to the introduction of the new system (which already operates in respect of the majority of Union members at the plant) can be sustained.
There are however some issues of concern in relation to the operation of the new system and the purposes for which it will be used which should be discussed and resolved between the parties before it is introduced. The Court recommends that the parties enter into further discussions on those issues over a period of four weeks from the date of this recommendation, after which the system should be introduced. The operation of the system should be reviewed jointly after it has been in operation for six months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th_July, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.