Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86723 Case Number: LCR11012 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AUGHINISH ALUMINA - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of 100 production operators concerning the allocation of annual leave.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86723 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11012
CC86763 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11012
PARTIES: AUGHINISH ALUMINA LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 100 production operators concerning the
allocation of annual leave.
Background:
2. There are 80 process operators and 20 control room operators
employed in the Company's production department. Within the
production department there are 3 production Sections each engaged
in 12 hour continuous four shift working. The workers concerned
make up a total of 12 shift teams with an average of 8 people per
shift team.
3. The holiday roster in the production area is prepared at the
beginning of the year and workers in each shift team have the
opportunity to roster their own holidays, subject to one worker
only per shift rostered off at any one time. The Union, on behalf
of the workers concerned served a claim on the Company for a
change in the current holiday roster arrangements to provide for
the rostering off at the same time of two workers per shift
instead of one worker per shift, in order to provide workers with
the opportunity to take their annual holidays within the Summer
period, which it defined as being within the period June to
August. The Company rejected the claim and as no agreement could
be reached at local level the matter was referred, on 28th April,
1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following
conciliation conferences, which took place on 30th July and 4th
September, 1986, and which failed to resolve the dispute, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. Due to the unavailability of the parties the
Court was unable to hear the dispute until 21st January, 1987, in
Limerick.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) It is reasonable for a worker in manufacturing
employment of the type engaged in by the Company, to
expect to be in a position to take holidays during the
Summer period.
(ii) By refusing to allow a worker to take annual leave
during the Summer period the Company is operating
outside the accepted local and national practice of
employers whereby employees are entitled to annual
leave during the Summer period even though as a result
additional costs might be incurred.
(iii) The continuous nature of the process involved does not
provide for the closure of the plant for annual
holidays. Consequently, the only remaining solution
is to ensure that workers receive a two week break
within the defined Summer period which is determined
in most cases by school holidays covering a 13 week
period - June to August. Concession of the Union's
claim would give the workers concerned the opportunity
to take holidays within this period. Under the
present system many of the workers have to opt for May
or September to take annual leave while those
requiring a few days leave within the Summer period
cannot be accommodated.
(iv) The Company has no difficulty in providing back-up
staff when operating training pools. Production
operators act as standby control room operators and
general services provide back-up for production
operation while back-up workers can be provided on an
overtime basis. The same system could apply regarding
the provision of cover for workers taking annual leave
during the Summer period. Also, some workers may not
wish to take holidays during this period and where
this occurs it will take pressure off the Company.
(v) Unlike other employments, the Company is not subjected
to seasonal fluctuations. Therefore, no valid reason
exists why a system cannot be introduced to allow the
workers take their annual leave during the period in
question.
(vi) The desire of the workers concerned to have their
period of rest and relaxation within the Summer period
with their families is reasonable. Therefore, the
claim should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Because of the nature of the process involved it is
necessary to spread annual leave in a manner which
takes account of the Company's particular work
requirements.
(b) It is possible for all the workers concerned to have a
fortnight's holidays during the months of June to
September if they organise the roster to meet this
objective which is within their power to do.
(c) The Company considers requests for time off on an
individual basis. During peak holiday periods this
frequently results in more than one worker off per
shift team, with associated overtime. Also, workers
may exercise the option of shift swaps with fellow
workers to secure time off where another worker on his
own shift team is rostered off.
(d) The current shift roster gives good opportunities for
time off apart from annual leave (details supplied to
the Court).
(e) Before taking up employment with the Company the
nature of the production process and the consequential
need for shift work and a staggered holiday roster in
the production department, was clearly explained to
each worker because it is fundamental to the way the
department operates.
(f) Each shift team includes one spare operator whose job
it is to cover as far as possible for other employees
on the team who are absent from work due to annual
leave, sickness etc. Holiday cover is the primary
justification for these 12 jobs.
(g) The conciliation conference was reconvened on 4th
September to give production workers the opportunity
to produce evidence which might establish that the
current holiday roster system is unreasonable because
of factors outside the control of the workers
concerned. They failed to produce such evidence.
(h) It is estimated that concession of this claim for the
months of July and August alone would cost in excess
of #50,000 in the production department alone. Apart
from the fact that the creation of such additional
costs is unnecessary, the current economic agreement
precludes the serving of such cost-increasing claims.
(i) Concession of the claim would not prevent the need for
workers to take time off at short notice for urgent
personal reasons. The Company would still have to
continue to consider such cases on an individual basis
and would continue to have to cover for such absences
with additional overtime where such requests were
granted.
(j) Concession of the claim would result in over-time
working averaging up to 12.50% during the period in
question, on top of any overtime which would otherwise
be worked during that period. This could cause health
or availability problems among the workers concerned.
It could also give rise to consequential claims etc.,
from other groups in the plant who might feel that
their opportunities for overtime working were
inadequate by comparison.
(k) In all the circumstances the claim must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
20th February, 1987 _______________________
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman