Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8917 Case Number: LCR12255 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NIXDORF COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning terms relating to the introduction of two cycle shift working.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the undertakings given by the Company in
relation to individual or group problems arising in connection
with shift working, the Court recommends that the proposals which
emerged from conciliation should be accepted.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8917 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12255
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NIXDORF COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning terms relating to the introduction of two
cycle shift working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is situated in Bray, County Wicklow and is engaged
in the manufacture of electronic hardware for its computers.
Established in 1977, it currently employs a total of 450 on day
work only. In June, 1987, the Company sought the introduction of
shift working (as provided for in the Company/Union Agreement).
Following lengthy negotiations proposals finally emerged which
were confirmed to the Union by letter on the 10th November, 1988
(details supplied to the Court). These proposals were put to a
ballot and were rejected. The matter was subsequently referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 23rd November.
At a conciliation conference on the 5th December, the following
proposals, put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer, were
accepted as a means of settling the dispute and were recommended
for acceptance by the Company and the Union Committee:
- the I.T.G.W.U. Committee acknowledged the Company's right
to introduce shift as per the 1980 agreement,
- on the question of attendance the I.T.G.W.U. expressed
reservations on the possible problems that might arise
following the introduction of the two-cycle shift. The
Company, for its part, insisted that the attendance and
time-keeping standards of shift workers would be maintained
on a similar basis as all other employees,
- the tea break will be extended to thirty minutes the timing
of the break to be agreed locally,
- where shift work is introduced, a minimum period of one
cycle shall apply (i.e. two weeks).
The workers rejected the proposals and on the 9th January, 1989,
the issues of the minimum period of shift and the provision of
transport were referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 19th January,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Throughout the Union's discussions with the Company, it
became evident that the duration of involvement in shift was
not guaranteed which meant that any section could be placed on
shift for one week and then taken off. In its proposals the
Company undertook to give a minimum of one week's notice when
shifts were to start or finish. This position was improved in
the I.R.O.'s proposals which provided that a minimum period of
two weeks should apply. In the majority of cases where it is
proposed to introduce shiftwork, the shift period is normally
for a considerable duration. However, in this case there is
no such guarantee. In such a situation and given the
inconvenience which stepping up and down on shift can cause,
the Union's claim for a four week minimum payment at shift
rate is not unreasonable.
2. The Union is claiming that the Company provide a transport
facility to staff on shift where the need arises. This issue
has proved to be the most contentious given the residential
locations from which some staff must travel to and from work.
3. The Union accepts that under normal circumstances
employees have an obligation to make their own transport
arrangements to get to and from work. However, the
circumstances of this case cannot be regarded as normal
bearing in mind the fact that it is the Company's decision to
introduce shift work and it is therefore its responsibility to
provide the means by which staff can adapt to the changed
working conditions.
4. The Company provides transport to staff when there is a
need to get some staff in on overtime at weekends. The
starting and finishing times of the early and late shift
respectively is outside public transport hours. This will
cause major problems for those staff who use public transport
to get to and from work.
5. Should the Court decide not to recommend in favour of this
aspect of the dispute, some staff could be unable to fulfil
their attendance and timekeeping obligations and thus be
exposed to the threat of loss of employment.
6. Staff currently pay an average of #11.00 per week for
transport and should not be expected to lose any portion of
their shift pay to meet the additional transport costs.
Additional costs should be underwritten by the Company in the
form of a subvention.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is reasonable in guaranteeing a minimum period
of two weeks once employees commence shift work. It is not
the Company's intention to be putting people on and off shift
on an ad hoc basis. The requirements to work shift will be
determined by the level of business and the Company intends to
operate a reasonable approach in this regard.
2. The claim for transport to and from normal shift work is
totally unreasonable. The Company cannot be placed in a
situation whereby it is obliged to transport its employees to
and from their normal work.
3. Concession of this claim would be totally at variance with
custom and practice throughout manufacturing industry in
Ireland and would inevitably lead to similar claims in other
companies. The Company is totally opposed to providing
transport and will not agree to do so.
4. The proposals put forward by the Company on the 10th
November contained the following guarantee:
"due cognisance will be given to the individual or group
problems as they arise as we embark on this new
mechanism."
It is clear therefore that the Company is committed to being
reasonable if problems arise.
5. The Court is requested to recommend that the agreed
proposals of the 10th November, 1988, as amended at
conciliation on the 5th December, and recommended for
acceptance by both sides, should be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the undertakings given by the Company in
relation to individual or group problems arising in connection
with shift working, the Court recommends that the proposals which
emerged from conciliation should be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th February, 1989 Nicholas Fitzgerald
DH/JC Deputy Chairman