FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OTIS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A GROUP OF LIFT ENGINEERS (REPRESENTED BY CONNECT TRADE UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Implementation of Personal Digital Assistant Technology.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 December 2020. RECOMMENDATION: The issue in dispute between the parties concerns the use of electronic handheld devices by 17 lift engineers employed by OTIS Ireland, and the phasing out of paper documents. Background The parties have a collective agreement which was entered into in 2006. The agreement at section 12 provides as follows
In February 2014 clarification in respect of Workers using the PDA’s in real time and using the health and Safety system “all safe” were issued by the WRC. In 2017 the Employer in return for a 3 year pay agreement, which was higher than the industry agreed rate, sought agreement in respect of an upgraded version of the PDA which would assist in moving the business towards digitalisation. The discussions ended up in the WRC who tabled a proposal in February 2018 noting that if the proposal was rejected by either party, it would be deemed to have been withdrawn and without status. Six superusers trialled the new iPhones and gave feedback to local management in respect of the suitability of the device. In June 2018 the Union members unanimously decided to withdraw from the negotiations and instead to accept the industry wide pay provisions. The industry rate including back money was paid by the Employer. In the intervening period the PDA had become obsolete and the parties had reverted to a paper- based system. In 2019 the Employer again sought to engage with the Workers and their Union in respect of the use of handheld technology as it was the Employers belief that operating on a paper basis was putting them at a disadvantage when tendering for new work and was impacting on the business’s ability to be competitive. In September 2019 it was agreed that 6 engineers would take the iPhone devices and trial them. However, that trial never happened. The issue was then referred to the WRC and a conciliation conference took place on the 3rdMarch 2020 and arising from that conciliation a Company Clarification paper was produced. A further conciliation conference took place on the 27thJuly 2020 at which the Union provided feedback on the Company Clarification paper. The Court in its engagement with the parties focussed on the issues raised in that document. The Union also informed the Court that the industry pay award of 2.7% payable from 1stSeptember 2019 had been paid across the industry as a whole but had not been paid by the Employer. The Union advised the Court that they had referred this particular issue to the WRC and were awaiting a date for a conciliation conference. The Court established at the start of the hearing that there was not an objection in principle by the union to the use of handheld devices. The Union informed the Court that they had set out their concerns in respect of using the devices in their feedback on the Employer’s clarification document. The Court using that document engaged with the parties in relation to the key concerns that the Union had in respect of the Applications (Apps) the Employer was proposing to have on the iPhone. It was accepted by both parties that responsibility for ensuring that the requirement to ensure compliance under the Data Protection Act and the Payment of Wages Act were a matter for the Employer and any breaches of either Acts could be pursued by the Union through the normal procedures. The Union’s issues in respect of having and using work email were twofold: 1) that anybody that required training in respect of same would have access to training; and 2) the work email would only be used for internal communications. The Employer’s response was that email training would be made available to any one who required it to operate their work email. In respect of the second point, the Employer confirmed to the Court that the email would only be used for internal communication. The engineer’s work email addresses would not be given to service users. The Union’s concerns in relation to real time usage of the Service CRM App was that difficulties and delay could arise if there was a glitch and it was not possible to input the data in real time. The Union suggested that if there was access to end of day usage as well as real time usage this would resolve this issue. The Employer considered this and informed the Court that while the priority was real time usage, end of day usage would also be available on the Service CRM App. The Unions concerns in relation to the move away from a paper timesheet to an online timesheet was that it could cause delay in Workers getting paid. They felt there was a need for a dual system for a period of six months to iron out any glitches in the system. The Employer’s position was that their preference was for a three-month transitional arrangement, however, they were prepared to agree that all paper-based timesheets would be phased out no later than six months after the date of this Labour Court Recommendation. The Union’s concerns in respect of the night service payment stemmed from the 2017 trial by six engineers where they experienced difficulties in putting the night service payments on the system and they felt that the Employer’s proposal re same was not viable. The Employer informed the Court that the App has been updated since 2017 and can now accommodate the night service payment. If during the period of the dual system, any issues arose on the electronic side they would work to resolve them. The Unions position in respect of GPS/Location Services functionality was that they felt it was not required to run the system that the Employer wanted to run. The Union identified two key concerns they had with switching the location services/GPS on: 1) the data could be used to track them in real-time; and 2) information gathered through that system would be used as a disciplinary tool. The Employer confirmed to the Court that having the GPS/location services working was required to optimise the sysytem. What they were proposing to use amounted to ‘GPS Lite’ in that it was not real-time tracking . Real-time tracking would mean the GPS is consistently recording, similar to a video. The system they would be using would amount to a ‘snap-shot’ (as opposed to a ‘video’) approach where the start of the job would be recorded as a discrete input and when there were any other inputs into the system those inputs would be similarly individually recorded. They Employer confirmed to the Court that the GPS/Location services would not be used for tracking or disciplinary purposes. The Court also engaged with the parties in respect of the Apps that would be on the iPhone, which are as follows; Service CRM to be used to complete jobs, populate timesheets and generate Electronic Service visit requests. The Dialogue box will remain available on this App but the Company preference is that parts requests will done through the parts app. Email App: for internal correspondence. Otis Field Portal: internal web system Upgrade: This will allow for upgrades to the iPhone . The Court engaged with both parties in respect of this and it was agreed that there can be three types of upgrades: 1) the upgrade that the phone manufacturers regularly role out; 2) Upgrades in respect of fixes i.e. where a problem with an existing app is identified and corrected. It was accepted that these are routine features of any phone/device; 3) The third type was where the Employer wanted to introduce a new app which would impact on the way the engineers worked. The Employer confirmed to the Court that in respect of new apps they accepted that they would have to communicate with the Workers in respect of same, discuss same and provide training, and that this cannot happen overnight. Survey: While on the phone, this would generally be used by managers Tune: Used to measure the ride quality of lifts and escalators. It would generally be used by technicians, but the engineers could use it if they wanted to. Parts: The parts app is available to engineers. It is an enhanced method of communicating parts requests. The engineers will not be required to sell or order parts. Service App: The Service app is a direct replacement of the current service tool which the Employer intends to phase out completely over time. Third parties do not have access or control over the device. After the initial hook up, the work is carried out off line. Yammer: This is a social networking tool that Employees do not have to use if they don’t want to. The Court believes that these issues have now been progressed to sufficient clarity to commence the rollout of the new hand-held technology (iPhone) with the Apps set out above included. Recommendation: The Court Recommends that the roll out commences no later than the last week in January 2021, with training for up to 10 ‘champions’ as identified by the company. This will facilitate the rollout to all engineers no later than the 1stweek in March 2021. With the final strand of the rollout to any of the 17 lift engineers in ‘new equipment’ be completed no later than the first week in April 2021. The parties should carry out a joint review of the operation of the Hand- held devices six months after the rollout is completed. The review should consider any operational issues that may have arisen and resolve any issues through agreed procedures as required. The second issue the Court had to consider was the outstanding payment of the industry pay increase that fell due on the 1stSeptember 2019 and increase in allowances that normally attract such a pay increase. Following engagement with the Court both parties agreed that the Court should also consider this issue. The Union position is that the payment has been made right across the industry and that its members have now fallen behind. The employer accepted that there was an industry pay and allowances increase with effect from September 2019, however, OTIS Ireland has been operating at a loss and is under considerable pressure from its parent company to address that issue. The Court having engaged with both parties makes the following recommendations in respect of pay and related allowances : With effect from the 1stMarch 2021 the Workers should receive the September 2019 increase with six months arrears of pay. On the next pay date following the 1stJune 2021 the Workers should receive another six months arrears of pay. On the next pay date following the 1stSeptember 2021 the Workers should receive the final 5 months arrears of pay The Court so Recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary. |
