FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KIRCHHOFF IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Normal ongoing change under Sustaining Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of a multinational Company who manufacture car parts and components at their premises in Letterkenny where they employ 113 workers. The final phase of Sustaining Progress of 2.5% was due to employees of the Company in September, 2005. The Company withheld the payment pending agreement by the workers to implement a new computer-based data collection system.
The Company maintain that the introduction of the new system will contribute to improved production planning, capacity planning and quality assurance systems and therefore improved efficiency, customer satisfaction, reduced costs and greater job security. The Company are also of the view that the introduction of the system is part of a normal ongoing change and is therefore perfectly reasonable.
The Union state that the question of a new system was raised after the final phase of S.P was due and that the two issues should be separate.
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 22nd June, 2006, in accordance with the terms of Sustaining Progress on behalf of the parties under Section 20 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, with both parties accepting the outcome. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union believe that the changes proposed by the Company involve significant change and are therefore not consistent with 'normal ongoing change'.
2. The Union maintain that the proposed change to an automated on-line data system will impose additional work and responsibilities on workers in the Supply Press Area.
3.Section 1.3 of Sustaining Progress states ..."The parties are committed to full cooperation with normal ongoing change...". It is the Unions understanding that the parties to the agreement have agreed it is not intended to effect a"paradigm shift"in the way change is dealt with - and agreed custom and practice would apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In line with Sustaining Progress the request to move from a manual system to an automated on-line data collection system constitutes normal ongoing change.
2. The Company must introduce such changes, through the adoption of systems, to maintain and improve competitiveness and employment.
3. The proposed change is in line with the key principles underlining Sustaining Progress as outlined in section 1.3:"it is accepted that the rapid pace of change in the business environment demands ongoing adaptation and that the parties have committed to full cooperation with normal ongoing change and the need for continued adaptation and flexibility to maintain and improve the competitiveness and to increase productivity and employment."
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute concerns the non-payment of the final phase - 2.5% increase - under Sustaining Progress. The Company is prepared to pay the terms of Sustaining Progress in return for the introduction of an online data collection system in the Supply Press area. Full details of the Company’s proposals dated 10th May 2006 on the changes required were provided to the Court. The Company submitted to the Court that this constitutes normal ongoing change under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
The matter was referred to the Court pursuant to Clause 1.10 (iv) of Sustaining Progress, which provides for the negotiation of the pay terms in return for the co-operation of normal ongoing change and for continued adaptation and flexibility by the parties. Where there is disagreement as to what constitutes normal ongoing change, it provides for referral by both parties, to the Labour Court for adjudication, under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, with the parties agreeing to accept the outcome, in advance.
Having considered all aspects of this claim 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 and can be regarded as "normal ongoing change" within the context of clause 1.10(iv) of Sustaining Progress.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Company's position and recommends that its proposals should form the mechanism for resolution of this dispute between the parties, the rate of pay applying to the Lead Operator position should be specified, the proposed changes should be implemented as quickly as possible and all outstanding monies due should be paid.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd November, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.