Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88316 Case Number: LCR11904 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the proposed change of duties and hours of work of a worker.
Recommendation:
10. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimant should immediately undertake
the revised arrangements proposed by management at the Court
hearing. If it is established that he incurs losses of earnings
over a twelve month period commencing at 1st July, 1988, then in
the absence of agreement at that time on the level of compensation
to be paid, the parties may refer the matter to the Court for
recommendation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88316 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11904
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WATERFORD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
DUNGARVAN PLANT
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed change of duties and hours of
work of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following a rationalisation agreement concluded with the shift
workers certain duties which the worker concerned performed have
either been eliminated or taken over by the shift workers.
3. The worker concerned is a day worker and when he was involved
in these duties had a 7.00 a.m. start and finished at 6.30 p.m.
Monday to Friday. He worked on Saturday and Sunday from 7.00 a.m.
to 1.00 p.m. He was paid overtime for hours worked in excess of
40.
4. The Company propose to change the job content and alter the
hours of work to an 8.00 a.m. start finishing at 5.00 p.m. Monday
to Friday and 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday.
5. The worker is not prepared to co-operate with the revised
duties as it would mean a severe drop in earnings. However, he
would co-operate provided his present rate of earnings is
maintained by taking on extra duties or if an increase in rate was
available to compensate for the loss.
6. The Company has refused to pay compensation as it cannot
guarantee that the proposed hours will be those that will actually
be worked and because of this there is no proven loss of earnings.
7. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 11th January, 1988. A Conciliation Conference was
held on 24th April, 1988. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on 17th
May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Management's proposal is not acceptable to the worker
concerned as the revised arrangements will result in a heavy
loss of earnings.
2. The worker is prepared to take on extra duties in order
to maintain his present level of earnings.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. Failure to agree on the proposal is preventing the
agreement on cost competitiveness being fully implemented.
The worker concerned is now the only one who has not agreed
to change.
2. The Society has advertised a number of jobs on site with
higher rates of pay but the worker has not made any
application. Losses, if any could have been offset by
applying for one of these positions.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the claimant should immediately undertake
the revised arrangements proposed by management at the Court
hearing. If it is established that he incurs losses of earnings
over a twelve month period commencing at 1st July, 1988, then in
the absence of agreement at that time on the level of compensation
to be paid, the parties may refer the matter to the Court for
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th June, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman