INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Payment of £1600 for operation of S.A.P.
2. The claim is on behalf of 18 storepersons employed in the Company's procurement section in Inchicore, and is for the implemantation of S.A.P., which is a computerised inventory system. The workers were regraded from from engineering operatives to storepersons in December, 1999. The Union claims that the workers concerned are part of a team which also comprises clerical staff and storeperson supervisors. Both of these groups received a £1,600 lump sum for implementing S.A.P., and the Union is seeking same for the 18 workers. The Company does not believe that the workers are due the money.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 5th of October, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of October, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of December, 2000.
3. 1. Prior to the introduction of S.A.P.,all items were recorded manually in the store. The store is now fully computerised, and the workers concerned have co-operated with using the new system.
2. All clerical staff staff received the lump-sum payment for their co-operation in implementing S.A.P. Following this, the storeperson supervisors also sought payment of the lump-sum, and this was conceded by the Company. A third group - Per-Way Inspectors - also received the £1,600.
3. The workers concerned are part of a team which also comprises clerical staff and storeperson supervisors. They should be paid the £1,600 lump-sum.
4. 1. Part of the job specification for the storepersons was responsibility for "inputting of receipts, issues, bin locations and stocktaking details efficiently into the computer under the direction of the Procurement and Materials Department." As such, they cannot claim a lump-sum payment for doing something which is part of their job.
2. The payment to the clerical staff was made as part of an overall productivity package. The effect on the clerical staff was far more wide-ranging than on the workers concerned.
3. The supervisory staff were paid only after an independent assesmant was made which identified that the level of input required by this group was not properly calculated during productivity discussions.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, recommends as follows:-
The parties to agree to an examination by the same independent third party involved in the Workshop Supervisor's case, in order to ascertain whether this group's claim is justified, based on the decision made to give £1,600 to the other 2 groups.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th January, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.