FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WHELAN FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-038867-IR-05-DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company updated its payroll system in January 2005, replacing a 20-year old computer package, which was no longer technically supported by the provider. All employees are paid weekly.
The issue before the Court relates to six employees in the making room. Traditionally their work was recorded for the purposes of the Production Incentive Scheme, on daily work sheets. The new computer package called for the work to be recorded on a single weekly work sheet. Each job is now coded and a list of the relevant codes has been issued to each operator.
The Union claim that the Company imposed the change without consulting with their members.
On the 24th February, 2005 when the six workers attended for work their clock cards were removed from the rack. They proceeded to the canteen and contacted the Union. A meeting was called and the workers then agreed to work the new system under protest. They were permitted to clock in at 11am.
The Union subsequently sought payment for the workers for the three hours they had missed. The Company refused to consider the request on the basis that they had outlined the consequences of failing to work under protest. The Company later made two offers on the matter of the lost pay. They were both rejected.The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. In his recommendation which issued on the 24th January, 2006, he recommended that the Company set up a communications meeting to ensure that the workers were fully informed on the detail of the new system. He found against the restoration of the original daily recording system and recommended the payment of 2 hours of the pay lost.
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 27th February, 2006, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd November, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union are seeking the payment of the three hours lost on the 24th February to the workers who turned up for work at the appointed time but were not allowed to commence work due to the removal of their clock cards.
2. The onus was on the Company to ensure that employees understood and were happy to cooperate with the new system before implementation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The refusal to work under protest pending a third party hearing was unreasonable and in contravention of established Company practice.
2. The position of the Company is that the refusal to work under protest on the 24th February was in effect a form of unofficial industrial action. In accordance with the established rules of industrial relations no payment should be made for the three hours of lost production time due to unofficial action.
3. The changeover from daily to weekly work-sheets is a reasonable management request. All other employees have been producing weekly work-sheets for a number of years now. The changeover was required owing to an upgrade of the obsolete wages software package.
DECISION:
The claim before the Court on behalf of the staff in the “making room” concerns the Union’s appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s recommendation, which found against the claim that the Company revert back to a daily recording system for the purposes of the calculating the production incentive scheme.
The Company changed the system which had been in existence since 1982 in order to upgrade the system. It stated that staff in other departments had no problem working the new system. The Company offered to provide the employees with whatever assistance was required to explain the workings of the new system. This offer was not taken up.
The Union objected to the change stating that the employees were being disadvantaged as the new system prevents them from tracking performance levels and bonus earnings.
The Court accepts that the change required can be considered as “normal ongoing change”. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that it was not unreasonable to expect employees to operate the new system under protest. However, the Court is of the view the Company did not engage in adequate consultation prior to the introduction of the new system. For this reason and in the interest of good industrial relations and the fact that the new system is now fully operational, the Court recommends that the three hours pay deducted from the claimants should be repaid immediately.
Accordingly, the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th December, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.