Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86647 Case Number: AD8681 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH CEMENT LTD - and - ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION |
Dispute concerning the appropriate electrician shift cover at the Limerick Works.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court does not
find any grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86647 THE LABOUR COURT AD81/86
Section 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 81 OF 1986
Parties: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED
and
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the appropriate electrician shift cover at
the Limerick Works.
Background:
2. Prior to 1983 the Company had 20 electricians employed at the
Limerick Factory. Of these 8 were on a 4 cycle shift providing
round the clock cover seven days a week. In 1983 a redundancy
situation arose in the Company. Following negotiations between
the Company and the Unions it was agreed that the number of
electricians would remain at 13. In 1984, there were 2 further
redundancies, which led to the introduction of a 6 man shift, 1x2
cycle plus 1x4 cycle with 5 on days. The Company since August,
1984, have sought to discontinue the 1x2 cycle shift, through
discussion and negotiations with the Union. The matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated the case on
28th February, 1986. The Rights Commissioner recommended in
favour of the elimination of the 1x2 cycle shift and also that the
Company compensate the 2 electricians for their potential loss of
earnings. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place at Limerick on 16th September,
1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) In 1983 it was agreed that the effects of the
redundancies on the electricians was excessive when
compared to other categories. The Company after
representations agreed to maintain the number at 13.
(b) The Company pleaded the case of difficult economic
circumstances when they made their initial submission
for redundancies. However, according to a newspaper
statement, profits for the first 6 months of this year
have increased by 15% compared to the same period last
year with the growth expected to continue.
(c) The removal of the second man on the 12-8 and weekend
shifts has led to great pressure to work less safe
practices. The removal of the 2nd man on the 4-12
shift would make this pressure intolerable as this is
the busiest shift with most of the plant starting on
this shift.
(d) It is felt that the Company will use other categories
to carry out electricians' work if there is a
reduction to a one man shift.
(e) The existing shift system should be maintained,
because the cost factor is minimal within the total
cost of running the electrical department.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company agreed in 1983 to keep the number of
electricians employed at Limerick at 13, because to go
ahead with the intended plan would have made a
disproportionate number of electricians redundant at
that time. However the Unions were informed that it
was the Company's intention to reduce the number of
electricians to one per shift, and that any
electrician who left of his own accord would not be
replaced.
(ii) The Company in its submission to the Rights
Commissioner pointed to the financial difficulties it
was experiencing due to the recession and the need for
optimum economic efficiencies for the survival of the
Company.
(iii) Efficient maintenance of the plant requires optimum
planned preventive work and this is best achieved on
days.
(iv) The two electricians concerned in the change were
compensated in 1984 for coming off continuous shift
work. The shifts which they now work are already
covered by the electricians working the continuous
shift roster.
DECISION:
5. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court does not
find any grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
______________________________
Deputy Chairman.
14th October, 1986.
M.D./J.C.