FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CENTRAL BANK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Machine Verification Procedure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute, concerning 24 machine operators and supervisors who operate BPS 3000 note processing machines, relates to the Bank's proposal that the claimants carry out a machine verification procedure on a regular basis. The procedure involved:
(a) putting identified counterfeit notes through the machines and checking two lines of data on the subsequent machine reports at the end of shift and
(b) verifying that a pre-counted bundle of bank notes was counted correctly by the machine.
The process would check that the machine was identifying counterfeit notes and counting notes correctly. The Union is claiming that the daily machine allowance of 5% be increased to 10%. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission . A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd February, 2005 in accordance with Section 20 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 4th March, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Hitherto the claimants have not been involved in counting tests. Where verification was occasionally deemed necessary, it was carried out by another category of employee in the Bank i.e technicians and senior administrative officers who are paid significantly better than the claimants.
2. Workers are not opposed in principle to performing the tasks and would be prepared to cooperate with this process in return for an increase from 5% to 10% of salary in the daily machine rate.
3. The Union does not accept that the work in dispute represents 'normal ongoing change' under the Sustaining Progress (SP) Agreement. On the contrary, as new and additional work for the claimants, the issue is one of major change involving appropriate remuneration.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The verification procedure does not differ in any significant way from the range of work tasks already carried out on the BPS 3000 machine. In general the verification process would only take a few minutes of staff time every couple of weeks and would be absorbed easily into the normal shift or day work. The work can be carried out effectively with a minimum of training and represents a small advance in the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the bank note processing operations.
2. It would not be feasible, in practical terms, for engineering technician staff who maintain the BPS machines, to carry out the verification work.
3. The proposed verification process falls within the principle of normal ongoing change as set out in the SP Agreement. Under the Bank's collective agreement with Currency Processing Staff it is agreed that staff will cooperate with ongoing change.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is satisfied that the proposed implementation of new and additional work (machine verification procedure) involving 24 machine operators/supervisors can be classified as "normal ongoing change" within the terms of Sustaining Progress. Consequently, the Court rejects the Union's claim.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th March, 2005______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.