FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY INGREDIENTS LISTOWEL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Normal ongoing change.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to what constitutes normal ongoing change.
The Union said it informed the Company it would accept the exact terms of Labour Court Recommendation 21376 which was accepted by the TEEU.
The Employer said it has offered the SIPTU Workers the terms and conditions attached to Labour Court Recommendation 21376. This offer was rejected by SIPTU.
- 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 20 January 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13 June 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer included 3 additional clauses around productivity in their offer. These are:
- 1. Full co-operation with SAP
2. No cost increase in claims during duration of pay round
3. Full co-operation with normal ongoing change
2. This was rejected because these additional clauses were not contained in Labour Court Recommendation 21376.
3. Co-operation with SAP should be discussed as part of a separate issue.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. SAP is standard manufacturing industry software that will replace outdated software and systems which is currently in place at the other Company manufacturing facilities.
2. Its introduction does not affect or change the role of the operator or similar grades at any of the manufacturing facilities.
3. The manufacturing technologies will remain the same and the role of the operator required to run these technologies will also remain the same.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The matter before the Court is, in essence, a dispute as to what constitutes ‘normal ongoing change’. In particular the parties are disagreed as to whether the implementation of SAP based software on the site to replace that currently used is ‘normal ongoing change’in the context of an offer made by the company to increase pay by 2.5% per annum each year from 2015 to 2018 inclusive – a total increase of 10% over the period.
The Court has on many occasions considered the meaning of commitments which are commonly made to ‘co-operate with normal ongoing change’.Indeed the Court in Recommendation LCR20805 clarified that
- ‘the concept of normal ongoing change should be understood as involving the use of new systems or methods in providing the same service or undertaking what is essentially the same task”
The matter before the Court involves the replacement of one piece of software with another. The Company has asserted that no threat to employment or earnings arises from implementation of the SAP software and has also asserted that its implementation will not affect production levels on the site or the work of production staff in any significant way.
In all of the circumstances and taking account of the assertions of the Company at its hearing, the Court recommends that the Trade Union accept that co-operation with the implementation of SAP on the site is encompassed by an agreement to co-operate with normal ongoing change. The Court, on that basis, recommends that the pay offer of the Company should be accepted in settlement of the pay dispute between the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
26 June, 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.