FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KRAFT FOODS (CADBURYS) - AND - UNITE TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Commitments sought in respect of the introduction of Access Control System
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter before the Court concerns the introduction of a new access control system by the Company. Access to the factory floor will be through a turnstile, operated by a swipe card. It is not connected in any way to the clocking-in system. It is the Unions case that such a barrier could potentially result in delays for workers clocking-in. The Union are seeking a grace period of 15 minutes for clocking-in during a trial period of one year for the new system, as the implications for being late are loss of earnings and good attendance bonuses. The Company position is that a grace period of 15 minutes is not justified and could adversely affect the efficient operation of the factory. The Mechanical or Electrical failure of the new barriers will not result in negative consequences for workers.
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 29th July, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd September 2011, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 There is a potential for delay at the entry points due to the large number of staff arriving for work at the same time slot. If someone forgets or cannot find their swipe card, this will also create a delay for workers clocking-in.
2 A grace period of 15 minutes for a trial period of one year should apply in cases where employees were delayed entry through no fault of their own but due to delays caused by the new access control system
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The claim for a 15 minute grace period is unjustified and new requirements are considered by the Company to be part of the ongoing change process which any successful and sustainable business needs to be capable of.
2 The Company has allowed sufficient time for consultations and has engaged fully on modifications to the system but now needs to move forward and take the necessary measures to enhance security by commissioning the new system.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the system in issue be operated by those associated with this claim on the terms proposed by the Company.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for a "grace period". It does, however, recommend that the Company should deal sensitively with any difficulties encountered by staff arising from the operation of the system in the initial stage of its operation. In that regard the Court notes the Company's commitment that employees will not be penalised because of later attendance arising from mechanical or electrical failures of the system.
The operation of the system should be reviewed after it has been in operation for a period of three months. The purpose of this review should be to correct any operational difficulties that become manifest over the review period.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th October, 2011______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.