Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87849 Case Number: LCR11812 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD CO-OP - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claims for (a) additional annual leave for shift work, (b) the abolition of 'plus hours' payment on Saturday, (c) parity with extra buy-out of electricians, (d) rescheduling of shifts during off-peak season.
Recommendation:
15. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, recommends as follows on the four elements of the claim.
(A) Additional Annual Leave:
The Court finds no justification for granting an increase in
annual leave.
(B) The abolition of 'plus hours' payment on Saturday:
The Court considers that the claimants should accept the Company's
proposals.
(C) Parity with extra buy-out of electricians:
As this sum was previously agreed between the parties the Court
does not recommend any increase on the amount.
(D) Re-scheduling of Shifts:
The Court is of the view that the Company's proposals are
reasonable and should be accepted.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87849 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11812
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WATERFORD CO-OP
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for (a) additional annual leave for shift work,
(b) the abolition of 'plus hours' payment on
Saturday,
(c) parity with extra buy-out of electricians,
(d) rescheduling of shifts during off-peak
season.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The claims are on behalf of 18 fitters and arose from the
introduction in 1986, of shift cover. These claims, among others,
were the subject of negotiations between the Company and Union.
Claims (a) and (c) were referred by the Union and claims (b) and
(d) arise from proposal by the Company. No agreement was reached
on these matters through local negotiations and on 5th March, 1987
they were referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 25th June, 1987 but
no agreement was reached. On 10th November, 1987 the case was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 23rd March, 1988 in Waterford.
CLAIM (A): Additional Annual Leave for Shift Work.
BACKGROUND:
3. The present annual leave entitlement is 20 days. The Union is
claiming that this be increased by 5 days for workers engaged in
shift cover. The Company rejects the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Shift work by its nature is demanding and unsocial and
usually people understand shifts to be of 8 hours
duration. The fitters work a 12 hour continental shift
system which came as a result of lengthy negotiations.
During these negotiations the problem of holidays was
referred to and our understanding was that problems like
that could be referred back for further consideration.
2. The problem is, if a shift worker takes a days holidays
now he will get 8 hours pay for it, or in a 36 hour week
earnings would drop to 32 hours. If management agrees to
a 12 hour holiday payment the number of days will drop to
13 to 14 days annual holidays.
4. 3. Management in arguing against us will quote national
standards for holidays and not wanting to be seen to break
these standards. It must be remembered that these shift
workers normal day is 12 hours and his earnings are based
on a 12 hour day and it is only right that his holidays
should reflect his normal earnings pattern.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Four cycle shift-work was introduced for the workers in
February, 1986 following negotiations. At no stage in the
negotiations was the matter of annual leave entitlements
at issue.
2. The workers received an increase of #22 per week in their
basic rate together with substantial compensation for any
loss of earnings which might accrue from the operation of
the new system.
3. Differentials for four cycle shift work have been eroded
in recent years as annual leave entitlement, for day
workers are increased. Where four cycle shift work has
been introduced in recent years no differential in respect
of holiday entitlements have been created for such
workers. In numerous instances the same level of annual
leave applies to all workers including those engaged in
four cycle shifts.
4. The workers are not entitled to additional annual leave
simply because they work 12 hour shifts. The present
shift rate provides for alternative weekly systems which
allows for generous time off compared to the old system.
5. The workers enjoy substantial benefits which they retained
on the introduction of the four shift system. These
benefits represent payments of approximately #1,400 per
annum.
6. Any concession of this claim would create substantial
pressure for additional holidays to other employee
categories. The Company would be unable to absorb such
cost increases.
CLAIM (B): The Abolition of 'Plus Hours'.
BACKGROUND:
6. 'Plus hours' was a practice introduced to half production
whereby workers were paid for work which is not actually
performed. It has been bought out for most workers with the
exception of the fitters. The Company sought to buy-out the 'plus
hours'. This was not acceptable to the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. 'Plus hours' are still good for productivity and when used
saves the Company money. The Company is bound by policy
without valuing the reality of the work practice.
2. It is also very important to remember that the shift
introduction removed call-out and also introduced a rota
system for week-ends which has been operated totally and
with full co-operation by the fitters. During this
introduction and the original negotiations there was no
persistence by management to remove these 'plus hours'.
If there had been it would have had an effect on the
decisions and recommendations made by not just the local
negotiation team but at national level. Once the system
is working management want another bite at the apple. We
feel it is important for the Court to endorse the work
originally done by the national negotiators and to protect
this good productivity agreement that studied over a year
saves the firm money and is good value to the worker when
it can be availed of.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. In the current economic climate there is no justification
in paying workers for work which is not actually
performed. The fact that a precedent exists for such a
payment does not alter the above.
2. The Company has reached agreement with other groups
concerning the elimination of 'plus hours' payments. The
basis of these agreements was a once off payment of 50/52
times the loss of earnings in the previous year with a
minimum payment of #240 per person. The Union has not
advanced any valid arguments as to why it should refuse to
accept arrangements agreed with other categories of
workers.
3. Generous compensation is on offer to cushion the impact of
the change.
CLAIM (C): Parity with extra buy-out of electricians.
BACKGROUND:
7. In 1985 and 1986 the Company negotiated the introduction of
shift working. The settlement reached with the fitters included a
once-off lump-sum payment of #5,000 was paid to each fitter.
Subsequently a similar agreement was reached with electricians for
which a lump-sum of #5,750 was paid to each electrician. The
Union is claiming that the workers here concerned should be paid
an extra payment of #750. The Company rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. During the negotiations on the introduction of shift work
it was always understood that both fitters and
electricians would receive the one buy-out payment.
2. The call-out system was introduced for and worked by the
fitters for many years before the Company employed
electricians of its own. The fitters' input into the
call-out system has been ignored in offering a special
payment to the electricians.
3. While on call the need arose for at least one extra
fitter to work with the nominated call-out fitter. This
element of fitters earning ability was ignored in
arriving at this special payment.
4. While an electrician availed of his call-out payment of 4
hours at double-time, in a great majority of cases he got
great advantage from this because of the nature of his
calls, in comparison to those of the fitters. The
electricians could avail of the bonus element of call-out
while doing physically less demanding work for shorter
periods of time.
5. The majority of the electricians now avail of the higher
shift rates to compensate them for the loss of call-out.
In the recruitment of most of those workers shift-work
was the agreed system for the future. The majority of
the fitters do not avail of shift-work on a regular
basis. This reduction in the earnings of fitters and the
fact that they availed of the call-out over a longer
period was ignored in deciding that the electricians
warranted an extra #750 because shifts were introduced.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The cost of concession of the claim would be #12,750. An
increase of 12.5% was applied to basic rate for the
introduction of the package. This along with the buy-out
payment of #5,000 was more than generous.
2. The lump-sum paid to fitters was more than adequate to
cover for loss of earnings and changes in work practices.
The average earnings from call-out for a fitter was
#4,000 per annum approximately.
3. The extra lump-sum paid to the electricians was paid on
the basis of the higher loss of earnings from the revised
call-out arrangement as the average call-out earnings for
the electricians at that time was considerably greater
than that of the fitters.
CLAIM (D): Rescheduling of shifts during off-peak periods.
BACKGROUND:
12. Since the introduction of the shift system in February, 1986
shifts have been re-scheduled (Sunday nights only) in the off-peak
season. The fitters on shift carried out this work under protest.
The Union is claiming that where shifts are re-scheduled overtime
should be paid where less than one week's notice of the change is
given and when a fitter is working in his re-scheduled 12 hours
usually on the following day that in this instance 8 hours worked
would cover for total re-scheduled hours. The Company proposed
that shifts be re-scheduled after a period of one week notice
during the off-peak season. If a shift has to be re-scheduled at
shorter notice than this it would be paid at overtime rates. No
agreement was reached through local negotiations.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
13. Re-scheduling of shifts has an effect on the time-off pattern
established for the shift fitter and could effect pay in certain
situations. Time-off and knowing when you are off is one of the
few social compensations open to 12 hour shift fitters. The
workers should be compensated for this change as the Union claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. Due to the seasonal nature of the dairy industry
production is discontinued over week-end periods in the
Winter months. Traditionally shifts have been taken off
or re-scheduled for production purposes. This practice
is already well established within the industry and on
site.
2. When the shifts were being re-scheduled by management for
the fitters cognisance was taken of the fact that this
action should not interfere with the basic entitlements.
Shift fitters were accordingly allowed to work their
re-scheduled shifts on days with no loss of earnings to
the individuals.
3. It is an absolute necessity to re-schedule Saturday and
Sunday night shifts during the off-peak season.
4. All other production personnel are off site at these
times and there is an obvious safety risk for one fitter
working alone during the night.
5. The only other person on site during these periods is a
security man and consequently there is no supervision or
management personnel present.
14. 6. The shift fitter would be far more productively employed
on normal day work helping in Winter overhauls.
RECOMMENDATION:
15. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, recommends as follows on the four elements of the claim.
(A) Additional Annual Leave:
The Court finds no justification for granting an increase in
annual leave.
(B) The abolition of 'plus hours' payment on Saturday:
The Court considers that the claimants should accept the Company's
proposals.
(C) Parity with extra buy-out of electricians:
As this sum was previously agreed between the parties the Court
does not recommend any increase on the amount.
(D) Re-scheduling of Shifts:
The Court is of the view that the Company's proposals are
reasonable and should be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___21st___April,____1988. ___________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman