FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOUTH COUNTY HOSPITAL - AND - UNITE/SIPTU/TEEU TRADE UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Proposed introduction of a biometric time recording system
BACKGROUND:
2.
This dispute concerns the proposed introduction of a biometric time-recording system in Louth County Hospital. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th April, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th May, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Union's side argued that the introduction of an electronic time recording system to one particular group of employees, namely the support staff, wasan unreasonable action on behalf of the Employer towards this group of Workers. The Union objected to the fact that the proposed system utilises biometric data. Furthermore, the Union raised issues regarding practical aspects of clocking in for the Technical Services Department.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
Management consulted staff and the Union's representatives prior to proposed implementation of the new system. The current time-recording system is outdated and in need of replacement. Management is willing to facilitate staff members who wish to use a swipe card as opposed to the biometric system.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given detailed and careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The persons covered by this claim currently sign in and sign out of their place of work. To that extent therefore the introduction of an electronic time recording system is a modernisation of an existing practice.
The Trade Union side laid great emphasis on the employer’s failure to secure implementation of electronic time recording for all groups on site at the same time. The Trade Union side understood that this was the employer’s intention when it initiated discussions with this group in May 2015. Minutes of a meeting held at that time and put before the Court by the Union side confirm that the employer said that ‘management are currently exploring the possibility of introducing a clocking system for all staff’.
The employer side do not accept that the indication was given that all staff would commence operation of an electronic time recording system at the same time. The employer stated to the Court that, over time, it intends to seek the agreement of all staff to the introduction of electronic time and attendance recording.
The Court has no detailed information as regards the current arrangements of other groups of staff on the site. The Court understands however that there is no uniformity between groups of staff currently as regards time and attendance recording on the site.
The Court cannot support a contention that the introduction of electronic time and attendance recording is anything but normal ongoing change. The Court cannot see how the arrangements made with other staff, which may already be different to the arrangements of staff covered by this claim, can have any impact on the terms and conditions of employment of the staff involved in this claim.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends as follows:
- •The parties should agree to the introduction of electronic time and attendance recording with effect from 5th September 2016. The equipment should, as proposed by the employer, offer the option of card swipe or biometric interface.
•The parties should engage to (a) agree the charge to be applied to staff who wish to use a card swipe and who lose a card requiring a replacement and (b) to make final arrangements to accommodate personnel required to work ‘off site’ on occasion.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
17 JUNE, 2016______________________
JDDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.