FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SCHLINDER LIFTS - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay Claim And Proposed New Comprehensive Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute betwen Schindlers Lifts and the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU) in relation to completing the negotiation of a new Company/Union Agreement. The issues in dispute concern (a) Travel Time (b) future requirements for the use of electronic recording equipment and (c) work allocation.
The Union's position is that travelling time should be at discretion of each engineer whether to travel to and from sites inside or outside the normal working day.
The Union contends that the issues surrounding the use of hand held recording equipment and timesheets should continue in line with previous practice. It does not accept that disputed issues in relation to this will be binding on the parties. In relation to "single man" working on the installation and maintenance of lifts, the Union has serious concerns in relation to the health and safety of workers. The Union is also seeking a pay differential over the current National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) rate of pay and service pay linked to the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
The Company's position is that an element of discretion exists in relation to travelling time and that every effort will be made to accommodate the workers in question. The Company also contends that issues surrounding the introduction of hand held technology and time sheet recordings will be dealt with by appropriate training and sufficient notice will be given. It also claimed that any issues that arise would be referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) for a Decision that would be binding on both parties. In relation to the issue of "single man" working, the Company's position is that the process will be monitored in line with the Company's safety policy and the approproiate risk assessments would be carried out. It also stated that where a need for assistance is identified, the worker should seek such assistance from a Supervisor. The Company maintains that it must get productivity agreements prior to implementing the wage increases.
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 25th July, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd November, 2007.
UNION POSITION:
3 1 The issue of whether travelling time is done inside or outside the working day should be decided by the worker. As every situation is different, the parties need to have further discussion and adopt a common sense approach before reaching final agreement on this issue.
2 The issue of hand held electronic equipment and timesheet recordings may need futher clarification prior to settlement. The Union has not previously seen any written clarification that starting and finishing times may be recorded in real time or within a reasonable timeframe afterwards. It is also not accepted that issues in dispute will be referred to the LRC for binding arbitration.
3 There are significant Health and Safety concerns related to allowing work be carried out by "single man" operation. In the event of an issue arising concerning the allocation of a particular task, the Engineer in question should approach the Supervisor who may need to seek the involvement of the shop steward.
COMPANY POSITION:
4 1 If travelling time were to be at the sole discretion of the worker it may lead to a situation where it may be exploited to maximise earnings potential. The Company cannot accept a situation where the workers have sole discretion on the application of travelling time payments.
2 The timesheets and hand held electronic recording devices are merely a more efficient way of recording important data. This new system will remove the need for written timesheets and other unecessary paperwork. Disputes in relation to the introduction of this system must be referred to the LRC for a decision binding on both parties.
3 The Company require "single man" operations in certain circumstances, providing the necessary skills exist. This will be done in line with the Company's safety policy and with regard to Health and Safety concerns. If an Engineer feels assistance is needed, he must ask the Supervisor for such assistance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns three outstanding items in a new comprehensive working agreement between the Company and the Union. Both sides jointly referred the three items to the Court for adjudication. Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court recommends as follows:
Clause 8 proposal dealing with the issue of Travelling Time.
The Court accepts that it is management’s right to decide on the time workers should report on site for work. The Union expressed concern about the timing of travelling to and from sites and sought to have discretion over this aspect of their work.
The Company stated to the Court that the current situation allows discretion to be exercised in order to accommodate individuals when difficulties arise due to the requirement to travel on their own time. It stated that individual circumstances are taken into account and the Company attempts to accommodate the employee’s needs. It assured the Court that such discretion would continue to be exercised.
The Court is satisfied that with the Company’s assurance on the level of discretion that will be exercised, the proposed Clause 8 should be accepted by the Union.
Clause 12 proposal dealing with the use of Equipment/New Technology.
Three issues arise under this heading, the Court recommends as follows:
1.Use Of Electronic Hand Held Devices (PDA’s).
The Company assured the Union that the engineer has two options, they can either record their start on and off times in “real time” or over the course of the day, or this can be done retrospectively within a reasonable time frame. The Union told the Court that this flexible approach to the recording of starting and finishing times would address the members concerns on this issue.
Therefore, the Court recommends that Clause 12 should be amended to clarify the Company’s flexible approach to the use of Electronic Hand Held Devices (PDA’s) and should be accepted by the Union.
2.Timesheets.
Having examined the Company’s requirements in relation to the recording of work progress, the Court is satisfied that the new timesheets are no more than a modification of current practice and accordingly recommends acceptance of the new timesheets.
3.Binding Arbitration.
The Court believes that where issues arise during the currency of the proposed agreement relating to the interpretation of the agreement or relating to the introduction or use of new working practices, procedures or technology, every effort should be made to resolve the mater by negotiation. If agreement cannot be reached the dispute should be submitted to third party adjudication, the outcome of which should be final and binding. The detailed provisions of the adjudication process should be agreed between the parties.
Clause 13 proposal dealing with the Allocation of Work.
The Court notes that agreement has been reached in principle between the parties on “single man (Engineer) working” in certain situations. However, the Union expressed its concern regarding health and safety issues, which may arise in such circumstances and sought to have intervention by the Shop Steward on such occasions.
Having examined the details and taking account of the Company’s assurances on this matter, the Court is satisfied that in the event of a problem arising the clause has sufficient built in protection, to ensure the safeguard of employees and accordingly recommends acceptance of the Clause 13.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd December 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.