Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87654 Case Number: LCR11475 Section / Act: S67 Parties: YOUGHAL CARPETS - and - ITGWU |
Filling of two-shift vacancies.
Recommendation:
7. In light of the circumstances presently obtaining in the
Company the Court is of the opinion that the Company's method of
filling the vacancies should be accepted pending a decision on
further investment and the negotiations on changes in work
organisation which will consequently be necessary.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87654 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11475
CC87735 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11475
Parties: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
CORK NO. 1 BRANCH
Subject:
1. Filling of two-shift vacancies.
Background:
2. The Company operates day work, two-shift, three-shift, and
night working. An agreement exists whereby vacancies are filled
on a seniority basis i.e. option to transfer from three-shift to
two-shift, from two-shift to day work, etc.
3. At present there are three two-shift vacancies and one
permanent day work vacancy. The Union's claim is that these
should be filled in accordance with the agreement, i.e. most
senior on three-shift given option to fill the two-shift
vacancies, etc. The Company expects that three-shift operating
will be required throughout the plant within the next twelve to
fifteen months and it would be unreasonable to transfer workers.
In addition, the filling of the vacancies would result in excess
workers in some departments due to future work requirements.
4. On 28th April, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. Conciliation
conferences were held on 11th June and 22nd July, 1987 at which no
agreement could be reached and on 27th August, 1987 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 6th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) Since 1976/77 there has been an agreement between the
Company and the Union whereby workers on three-shift
are given the opportunity to transfer (on a seniority
basis) to two-shift and from two-shift to day work,
etc, when vacancies arise. This agreement has now been
in existence for over ten years and has operated well.
(ii) During the last twelve months, eight workers have been
re-deployed to cover workers out sick, etc. This
system has been operated under a flexibility agreement.
The vacancies which we wish to have advertised and
filled arose from workers leaving the Company. These
positions should therefore be filled in accordance with
the agreement until alternative arrangements are
negotiated.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) Replacement of two-shift working has been under
discussion since November, 1985. Three-shift operation
is essential for the Company to be competitive.
Substantial investments have been made in new equipment
during 1987 and further substantial capital investment
is envisaged in 1988. As a short-term solution the
Company has employed permanent night shift workers in
some departments, but this costs 13% above normal costs
and is therefore expensive. The Company is now under
new ownership and future capital investment will be
substantially reduced unless the Company is in a
position to work three shifts as required.
(b) In the last few years by agreement with the Union,
two-shift jobs have been phased out as appropriate.
Acceptance of the Union's argument that the number of
two-shift jobs is maintained, results in machines lying
idle in some departments and in many instances would
compel management to appoint workers to jobs that no
longer exist.
(c) Until it is necessary to put operations on a
three-shift basis (in approximately 12-18 months) the
Company will try to accommodate workers now on two
shift jobs in two-shift jobs where it is practical,
although no guarantees can be given. However it would
not be feasible or practical to transfer workers to the
vacancies in question.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. In light of the circumstances presently obtaining in the
Company the Court is of the opinion that the Company's method of
filling the vacancies should be accepted pending a decision on
further investment and the negotiations on changes in work
organisation which will consequently be necessary.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
19th October, 1987
U.M./J.C.