FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AGI LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Installation of cameras.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to the installation of cameras. Management's position is that the cameras are required to meet insurance and customer requirements to protect plant and equipment and to secure the Health and Safety of its employees needs. The Union's position is that there are already sufficient cameras in place to meet the Company needs and those of its clients. It does not agree to have cameras installed and used in the production areas or for performance management purposes.
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 the 1st December 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th March, 2012.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
2. 1. The cameras will not be used for performance management purposes. The need to install the cameras is driven by insurance requirements and the requirements of clients who require high levels of security during the production of its products.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. There are already sufficient cameras in place to meet insurance needs and the requirements of the Company's clients. It is the Union's belief that these cameras are being installed to assist in the performance management by monitoring the production levels of the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Company told the Court that it needed to introduce additional CCTV cameras into the plant for the following purposes.
- To protect and secure its staff
- To protect and secure its assets
- To meet the requirements of its customers
- To protect and secure its products
The Company further told the Court that the CCTV cameras
- Would not be focused on the production area
- Would not be used to monitor performance or productivity
- Would not be used to monitor time and attendance patterns
- Would not be used for disciplinary purposes other than to undertake a retrospective examination of the captured images as part of the investigative process of cases of suspected gross misconduct.
Finally the Company told the Court that the future viability of the plant depended on its attracting new contracts from customers whose security requirements necessitated the installation of such additional cameras.
Based on these assurances the Court recommends that
- The Company comply with its undertaking to provide documentary evidence to the Union underpinning the requirements of its insurers and customers regarding the installation of the additional cameras.
- Revise its Data Protection Policy to reflect the commitments outlined above that it gave to the Court.
On this basis the Court recommends that the Union co-operate with the introduction of the additional cameras.
This process should be completed within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation.
The Court further recommends that the entire matter be reviewed after 12 months with a view to addressing and resolving any issue that arise during that time.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th April, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.