Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88924 Case Number: AD8911 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: YOUGHAL CARPET YARNS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST444/88 concerning the transfer to three shift operations and compensation for same.
Recommendation:
6. In dealing with this appeal the Court had note of the history
of this dispute and had cognisance of previous Rights
Commissioners' recommendations, the report of mediation, and the
contents of the Rights Commissioner's Report No. ST444/88. In
particular the Court noted the statement contained in the above
report to the effect that "the need for three cycle shift working
must be met".
Following consideration of the arguments submitted by the parties
in relation to the subject matter under appeal, the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable and should be accepted and accordingly rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88924 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1189
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: YOUGHAL CARPET YARNS LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:*
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation ST444/88 concerning the transfer to three shift
operations and compensation for same.
BACKGROUND:
2. For some years now the Company has been seeking to implement
three shift operations throughout the plant. This has involved
both protracted local discussions and intervention by third
parties such as the Labour Court and a Rights Commissioner. In
April, 1988, the parties agreed to the appointment of Mr Stephen
Tracey, Rights Commissioner as a mediator in the dispute. He held
lengthy discussions with the parties and put forward several
proposals aimed at resolving the issue.
3. On the 16th September, 1988, in his role as Rights
Commissioner, he investigated a dispute concerning the level of
compensation for three shift working. He issued the following
Recommendation on the 20th September:
"It seems to me that the need for three shift working must be
met. The objections of two shift workers is understandable,
but the survival of the plant is at stake. The investment by
the parent company is heavy. In my view its investment in
the workforce cannot be disproportionate. The Company
pointed out that it was not into "horse trading" when making
its only offer. Despite these good intentions, I am
convinced that this offer must be significantly increased to
gain acceptance. Accordingly, I am taking the unprecedented
step of recommending that the Company offer dated the
29/8/881 under the hand of the Group Personnel Manager, be
increased by 50% (fifty per cent)."
1 Appendix A refers.
* This document is to be read in conjunction with LCR12276.
The Company subsequently appealed this Recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 6th December, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Court in its recommendation No. 11475 of 19th October,
1987, and subsequent letter of clarification of 21st
December, 1987, already recognises the necessity for a
"smooth and efficient working system" which is a three shift
cycle.
4.2 The enormous training and retraining costs of up to #500,000
which could be involved, by permitting more senior three
shift employees claiming two shift jobs during the period
whilst three shifts is being phased in, cannot be absorbed by
the Company.
4.3 The Company recognises the inconvenience involved by
employees changing from a two shift cycle to a three shift
cycle, but Management see this as the only method by which
the Company can operate efficiently and compete on
international markets, where 85% of its products are
exported. The long term security of all jobs in the plant is
a prime consideration. Failure to achieve a smooth
changeover to three shifts will jeopardise the Company's
future.
4.4 The Company will pay the compensation recommended and the
total sum involved is of the order of #150,000. This alone
underlines its depth of conviction on the necessity for three
shifts.
4.5 It is jointly agreed by Management and the Union that capital
investment is vital for the future of the plant. It is
Management's contention that such plant can only be
effectively operated on three shift basis.
Management has succeeded in obtaining a #4m investment in
plant machinery from the parent Company since 1986.
Two departments, Reeling and Winding, have been partially
re-equipped over the past two years, and by January 1st,
1989, both departments will have all new machinery installed
at a cost of #1m.
As of the date of this hearing, #.50m of machinery is either on
site or in transit. The installation of machinery is
dependant on agreement by January 1989 to operate on a three
shift basis, otherwise orders would not be fulfilled due to a
reduced number of machines. In addition, some machinery would
remain idle, which would have consequential effects
throughout the plant.
4.6 The Company has already in place some arrangements with
managerial/supervisory/laboratory/Q.C. staff to work three
shifts. This is vital to achieve teamwork continuity etc, to
obtain international standard 9003 without which it will be
unable to secure its markets.
The Company has already indicated that it is prepared to deal
specifically at this time with Reeling/Winding departments
and to deal with other departments as the necessity arises.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5.1 The workers are of the view that three cycle shift is not
necessary. Counter proposals were put forward by the Union
to the effect that the Company could employ a small workforce
on permanent nights. This has been done in the past and in
fact there are some people on permanent nights at present
(December, 1988). This would be only for a short duration as
vacancies occurring on three shifts would be filled by
transfer from permanent nights.
5.2 Management has not looked at the serious implications for the
workers in having to go from two to three cycle shift.
5.3 The level of compensation offered is very low and it is
obvious that no consideration was given to the fact that
serious loss of earnings would be incurred (details supplied
to the Court).
5.4 The Rights Commissioner accepted that people now on three
shifts would have their expectation of two shifts denied.
They have a case for compensation when one takes into account
that people who are junior to them on two shifts would be
compensated for going onto three shifts.
5.5 The Union does not see this case as a matter of compensation.
If Management was prepared to be reasonable, a solution could
be found which would satisfy production targets without
imposing further hardships on the workers.
DECISION:
6. In dealing with this appeal the Court had note of the history
of this dispute and had cognisance of previous Rights
Commissioners' recommendations, the report of mediation, and the
contents of the Rights Commissioner's Report No. ST444/88. In
particular the Court noted the statement contained in the above
report to the effect that "the need for three cycle shift working
must be met".
Following consideration of the arguments submitted by the parties
in relation to the subject matter under appeal, the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable and should be accepted and accordingly rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th February, 1989 Evelyn Owens
DH/PG Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX A
Schedule of Compensation
Proposed by Y.C.Y. for Employees Transferred to 3 Shifts
Minimum Payment: #250.00
No. of Years on 2 Shifts Compensation
#
Up to 5 years 250
6 to 8 years 350
9 years 360
10 years 400
11 years 440
12 years 480
13 years 520
14 years 560
15 years 600
16 years 640
17 years 680
18 years 720
19 years 760
20 years 800
21 years 840
22 years 880
23 years 920
24 years 960
25 years 1000
(a) All payments before tax.
(b) Payable only when employee goes on 3 shifts.
(c) Years of service will be calculated from date employee went
on 2 shifts to date transferred to 3 shifts.
(d) Employees cannot claim compensation twice, i.e. 2 to 3 shifts
back to 2 shifts again and then to 3 shifts.
(e) Excludes employees contracted to work any shift rota, i.e.
employed since September 1981.