FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KILLEEN CORRUGATED PRODUCTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AGEMO SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Data Capture.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between AGEMO/SIPTU and Killeen Corrugated Products in relation to the installation and operation of computer terminals to facilitate Data Capture. The dispute centres around whether or not the proposed new system constitutes ongoing change as provided for under Clause 1.10 of Sustaining Progress. The Company maintain that the introduction of the new Data Capture System will greatly improve the efficiencies of the company.
The Union's position is that the introduction of the new system will potentially achieve considerable financial gain for the Company and is, therefore, a fundamental change in work practises.It claims that gains arising from the new system should result in an increase in the basic rate of pay.
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 28th January, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th May, 2005. Both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- 3. 1. The Data Capture system is not normal ongoing change as provided for in Sustaining Progress. The increased productivity brought about by this initiative will result in financial gain for the Company.
2. The Union have accepted in principal the introduction of the new system but on a trial period with adequate training given and cost / savings and efficiencies of the system monitored accordingly.
3. Members have accepted the need for the introduction of new technology but would prefer an increase in their basic rate of pay rather than a once-off lump sum payment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of the new system is normal ongoing change as provided for in the Sustaining Progress Agreement, which will greatly improve working conditions for all employees.
2. The introduction of the new system is essential for the Company to remain viable in an extremely competitive market.
3. Several attempts have been made to resolve the issues, whereby a lump sum payment of €450 net was offered to each employee at a time when the Company had been experiencing difficult trading conditions. This was rejected by the Union. Management subsequently increased the offer to €500 net. This was also rejected.
4. The Company / Union Agreement provides for full co-operation with the introduction of computerisation and new document systems.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that what is proposed by the Company amounts to the use of technology to undertake tasks already being undertaken by manual means. As such it constitutes normal on-going change.
This matter was referred to the Court pursuant to Clause 1.10 (iv) of the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress and the Courts finding as set out above would normally dispose of the matter.
However, the parties have been in discussions on the terms on which the proposed changes could be introduced and asked that the Court would, in any event, make recommendations as to the reasonableness of those terms.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the Company's offer of a lump sum of €500 be increased to one of €800 per person affected.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th May, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.