Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86837 Case Number: LCR10967 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SCHEOPP VELOURS - and - NEETU |
Dispute concerning the employment of an electrician.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86837 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10967
CC861565 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10967
Parties: SCHOEPP VELOURS IRELAND LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the employment of an electrician.
Background:
2. The Company up to early this year, employed two electricians
working on alternative shifts covering the third shift when it
occurred on a call-out system. Earlier this year one of the
electricians left the Company's employment. He has not been
replaced to date. On the 29th January, 1986 the Company wrote to
the Union informing them that they were not replacing the
electrician who left, that they proposed to place the worker (the
remaining electrician) on days and that the other shifts would be
covered by the worker and the supervisor (who is also an
electrician) on a call-out system. The Company also proposed to
compensate the worker for loss of shift premium by continuing to
pay him shift rate for 18 weeks. Following a number of meetings
between the Company and the Union it was decided that the
proposals would be accepted on a trial basis. At the end of the
trial period the Company indicated that they were satisfied with
the new arrangements, the Union was not and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 20th
September, 1986. A conciliation conference was held on 24th
October, 1986. As no agreement was reached it was agreed to refer
the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Wexford on
25th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) There is too much work for one electrician. Since the
start of the trial period, the worker concerned has
been working a seven day week. The supervisor who does
call-outs, does no maintenance work as he has other
duties to attend to.
(b) The worker concerned has to do all preventive
maintenance and train a second year apprentice. The
previous apprentice was let go in September, which in
effect further compounded, the problem as a final year
apprentice is a lot more competent than a second year
one.
(c) Apart from all the extra work the Company also expects
the worker concerned to take a reduction in earnings as
they propose to stop completely his shift premium when
the matter is finalised.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company is not going to put its business at risk
due to lack of adequate maintenance personnel on hand
to deal with breakdowns and stoppages. While only
employing one electrician and one apprentice the
Company has been achieving maximum output and sales and
despatch are running at a very high level.
(ii) There is little, if any loss of earnings to the worker
concerned as the additional call out allowance and
calls would largely offset the loss of shift premium
(details supplied to the Court).
(iii) The Company considers they have approached the problem
in the correct manner, there has been discussion, a
trial period during which the worker's rate maintained
and the offer of compensation for loss of shift
premium.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman.
3rd February, 1987.
M.D./J.C.