Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88246 Case Number: LCR11846 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Company concerning the availability of 20 fitters rostered for "call-in".
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court is of the
opinion that workers rostered for "call-in" are obliged to be
contactable during the period of the "call-in".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
11th May, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88246 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11846
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Company concerning the availability of 20 fitters
rostered for "call-in".
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 11 plant maintenance and 10 I.S. machine
fitters. It is a condition of employment that each fitter be "on
call" as the manufacturing process in continuous and fitters are
not employed on shift. The fitters arrange their own rostering to
comply with the Company's requirement. A "call-in" allowance is
built in to the rate of pay and is paid at all times, regardless
of being rostered or not. The Company contends that when fitters
are rostered as "on-call" and a breakdown occurs, it must be able
to contact that man and get him in to repair the breakdown within
a reasonable time. If the Company cannot contact that man then it
is as if there was no one "on-call". The Union maintains that the
Company is trying to operate a "stand-by" system rather than
"on-call". A much higher premium would, in the Union's view, be
more appropriate for the "stand-in" situation envisaged by the
Company. Local discussions failed to resolve the matter and on
3rd February, 1987, it was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. Following a conciliation conference on 5th
March, 1987, the matter lay dormant pending the outcome of
negotiations on a major rationalisation/reorganisation in the
Company, during which it was felt it might be possible to resolve
the "on-call" issue. The parties reached agreement on the
rationalisation in January, 1988, however agreement was not
reached relative to this dispute and the matter was referred on
30th March, 1988, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 14th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company maintains that workers must be either
available or contactable at all times when "on-call". By
insisting on that kind of service the Company are in fact
trying to operate a "stand-by" system, whilst paying for a
"call-in" system which carries a lower premium.
3. 2. The "stand-by" system which operates in other sections of
the Company requires the workers on "stand-by" to be available
at all times. For this availability the worker on "stand-by"
receives a payment of 4 hours per day, which equals
approximately £25, which for a week would amount to
approximately £175.
3. The Union has, on several occasions in the past, indicated
to the Company that if they are unsatisfied with the "call-in"
system then the Union would be willing to discuss changing to
a "stand-by" system. The offer has never been taken up by the
Company because they have an excellent service from the
fitters on "call-in" for a comparatively small premium. The
fitters are not prepared to work a "stand-by" system without
being properly paid for it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, to be cost effective, must minimise down-time
in the plant and towards this end fitters must respond to a
"call-in" quickly. This does not mean he must always be at
home, but he must be contactable and report in a reasonable
time.
2. If a fitter who is rostered as being "on-call" is not
contactable or is not available, then he is not "on-call" and
this is not an acceptable situation to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court is of the
opinion that workers rostered for "call-in" are obliged to be
contactable during the period of the "call-in".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
11th May, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.