FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : C & C (IRELAND) LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of Company /Union Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production and distribution of soft drinks. The issue in dispute relates to a difference in interpretation of the Company/Union agreement relating to the introduction of new technology the "Warehouse Management System" WMS. It is a new labelling system and necessary to ensure full traceability of Company products, a legislative requirement since January 2005 following the transposition into Irish Law of EC Regulation 178/2002. The legislation requires food/drink manufacturing companies to ensure full traceability of its products at all stages of its production and distribution activities. Both forklift drivers and the palletiser operators will be required to operate the WMS.
A new Company Agreement was negotiated and implemented in October, 2000. A lump sum payment was made to all employees on the introduction of this agreement. Item 8 of the agreement states:"In line with previous agreement on the introduction of new technology a WMS will be introduced and operated as appropriate by all working on the Site. This will involve the introduction of scanning and computerised display units being fitted to all forklifts"The change referred to above is now being introduced and the Union has no objections in principle to its introduction.
The Union is however seeking negotiations for an upgrade and an increase in salary for the introduction of the new technologyand maintains that this is provided for under the 2000 agreement. The Union is adamant that the 2000 agreement must be read in conjunction with the 1996 agreement which allows for a negotiated payment. It is the Company's position that the introduction of new technology has been agreed and already paid for under the 2000 agreement and that there is no merits in this claim.
- 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 Company referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 13th July, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd September, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Company's interpretation of item 8 of the 2000 Operation Change Agreement is an erroneous and selective one. The wording clearly states "in line with previous agreements". The relevant previous agreement is the 1996 Plant Agreement and there are several of these agreements going back to 1984 where the issue of new technology is clearly addressed.
2. It is open to the Company to evaluate and form an opinion on whether "substantial change and/or increase in job responsibility" exists. It isnotopen to the Company to seek to eliminate the workers' right to have discussions and seek negotiations which are guaranteed to them in the 1996 Plant Agreement and again re-iterated in the 2000 Operations Change Agreement.
3. The Union claims that the workers (but 1) now involved in this dispute were not employed at the time of the 2000 agreement and would not have been paid for the changes involved in WMS.
4. The Union has no objections in principle to the implementation of the WMS but the commitment contained in the agreement must be honoured. Management expressed a view that WMS was referred to be automatically implementable and that there were no grounds for consideration of a claim. Workers expressed a desire to move up a grade within the Company's three grade structure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 It is the Company's position that WMS had been addressed and agreed within the context of the October 2000 Operations Change Agreement. Workers were remunerated as part of that Agreement.
2. WMS will not involve a "substantial" change to existing work practices and can only be viewed as normal ongoing change. The changes involved are insufficient to justify compensation in isolation. The introduction of WMS will not have an adverse effect on job security, manning levels, or overtime earnings. The system is about traceability not productivity.
3. The Union's refusal to co-operate with the Company on the introduction of WMS has had serious implications for the Company It was expected that WMS would be implemented by March 2005, following training in early 2005. This has now been substantially delayed.
4. The requirement to implement WMS was identified as far back as 2000 and reference was made to its introduction and was addressed as in the 2000 agreement as part of a package of measures agreed to at the time. Therefore no further payment is warranted for it.
5. The Company has invested heavily in the introduction of WMS to comply with the legislative requirements and in turn therefore has invested in the Company's future.
6. The Company do not agree with the Union's assertion that the implementation of WMS involves "substantial change" or that "discussion" means negotiation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the only issue before it is the correct interpretation of an agreement entered into between the parties in 2000. The wording of the agreement is somewhat unclear and is open to more than one viable interpretation. It is however clear that the agreement provides for the introduction of WMS and requires the cooperation of all staff that are required to operate the system.
It is equally clear that the introduction to the relevant clause in the 2000 Agreement provides that the new system will be introduced in line with previous agreements. The most relevant previous agreement is that concluded in 1996 on the introduction of new technology. This is essentially an enabling provision which allows for the introduction of new technology when required by the exigencies of business. It does, however, provide that where the introduction of new technology results in substantial change and/or increase in job responsibility it will be the subject of discussion between the parties.
It seems to the Court that the introduction to the agreement of 2000 requires that it be read in conjunction with the agreement of 1996. On that interpretation the company are entitled to introduce the technology associated with the WMS system and the Union are required to cooperate with its introduction. However if the introduction of the system has the effect in practice of bringing about substantial change and /or increase in job responsibility discussions should take place between the parties on an appropriate response, in line with previous custom and practice.
On the basis of this understanding of the agreement the Court recommends that the current impasse be resolved as follows:
1. The Union should now agree to the introduction of WMS and should continue to operate the system as required.
2. The parties should have discussions, in the context of the 1996 agreement, without precondition on either side.
3. These discussions should continue for a period of not more than three months, after which outstanding issues should be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th September, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.