FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : XEROX (IRELAND) LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. GPS Tracking. 2. Work/Travel Time. 3. Meal Allowance. 4. Stand-By Rates
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns four issues of contention between the parties regarding a GPS tracking system, travel time, meal allowances and stand-by rates. The workers concerned are employed as service engineers. The Company experienced a downturn in revenue in 2008 and 2009. In 2009 discussions were held between the parties to discuss a number of cost saving measures including redundancies. Agreement could not be reached on the above four issues. The Union argues that over the last two years its members jobs, cars, allowances and terms and conditions have been diminished by the Company. They have forgone pay increases due since July 2007. The Company position is that it is facing significant challenges in the market place and increasing competition as a direct result of the labour costs of its service engineers.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 21st October, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th June 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 At this time GPS is an unnecessary expense. The Company know where every engineer is through the XSAP programme on each of their laptops. It is an invasion of their privacy as engineers have the use of company cars on their own time.
2 The Company are seeking up to two hours travel time unpaid each day. The Union reject this as it would impact considerably on earnings. An offer of one hour unpaid per day was rejected by the Company.
3 The Union would consider a buy-out of meal allowances at twice the annual net loss.
4 The union would consider a reasonable reduction in stand-by rates and not those proposed by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The benefit of GPS for the Company is associated with productivity, health and safety and the recording of working time more accurately It would allow the Company to manage the service team in a more cost efficient manner. The Company has drafted a code of practice which it proposes to implement with the GPS system.
2 The Company propose that service engineers mobile phones be switched on at 8:30am instead of 9:00am in order for them to obtain details of their first call and endeavour to arrive at that call by 9:00am. The Company is seeking that up one hour unpaid travel time be conceded.
3 The Company is seeking to buy out meal allowances. These allowances do not exist in the Company's other operations around Europe.
4 The stand-by rate is a significant cost to the Company and 67% of that cost in 2008 and 2009 was not offset by charging the customer. The Company is seeking a reduction of 35% in the weekday stand-by rate and a 50% reduction in the Sunday call out. The Saturday call out rate is also to be replaced by the weekday stand-by rate
RECOMMENDATION:
The matters before the Court concern four remaining issues not resolved following negotiations between the parties on the Company’s Service Plan 2009. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:
GPS Tracking Device:
The Union indicated to the Court that with certain safeguards concerning the Company’s access to the GPS system when the employee is not on working time, it was prepared to accept the proposal to introduce GPS systems in all Company cars.
The Court recommends that the proposed Code of Practice on the use of the GPS system should be examined by the Union to ensure it meets its concerns, following which the Union should accept the introduction of the system.
Travel Time:
The Company sought to amend the working hours to allow for travel time of up to one hour before 9.00am and up to one hour after 5.30pm. The Union in response offered one hour travel time per day, i.e. half hour before 9.00am and half hour after 5.30pm.
The Court is of the view that the Union’s offer is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and recommends that it should be accepted by the Company.
Meal Allowances:
The Company offered to buy-out the allowances. The Union stated that they would agree to a reduction in the allowances.
The Court recommends that the meal allowances should be bought out and that twice the actual value of allowances paid in 2009 as it applied to each individual, should be paid in compensation for the removal of the allowances.
Stand-by Rates:
The Company proposed to reduce the rates applicable for stand-by arrangements, which vary according to the day of the week and includes a specific stand-by arrangement for a nominated contract.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that there are grounds for amending the stand-by arrangements and introducing more uniform stand-by rates. However, the Court is of the view that there have been insufficient negotiations between both sides on the level of stand-by rates to apply and consequently recommends that the parties should immediately enter into meaningful negotiations on this issue. The Court recommends that these negotiations should be completed by no later than 26th July 2010. In the event that the issue remains unresolved it should be immediately referred back to the Court, when the Court will issue a definitive recommendation on the issue.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th July, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.