Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8932 Case Number: LCR12276 Section / Act: S67 Parties: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED - and - |
Recommendation:
5. The Court understands the Union's concern regarding the
social impact of an extension of 3 shift working on some of its
members but must consider this concern in the context of the state
of the business and the corresponding long-term security of
employment for all the workers. The Company has succeeded in
securing significant capital investment and also in avoiding any
forced redundancy in its present re-organisation plans. So an
opportunity now exists for the Company to consolidate and further
improve its market position and thus secure the positions of its
workers. Full co-operation of both parties is essential to avail
of this opportunity and the immediate requirement is to make full
use of the newly installed modern equipment in the most
cost-effective way. The Court is satisfied that this requires the
extension of 3 shift working as proposed by the Company because
the alternative proposed by the Union would inevitably involve
large re-training expenditure and lead to continual disruption of
production.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union accepts the
Company's proposals for the extension of 3 shift working (Company
letters 20/12/88 refers). In making this recommendation the Court
has taken into account the Company's undertaking to retain some
2 shift and day jobs (personal to holders) and to introduce
opportunities to offset losses in overtime arising from the
introduction of 3 shift operations for certain employees on
Saturdays cleaning operations. Pending the introduction of
3 shift operations throughout the Plant the Court further
recommends that there should be no claiming of jobs (vide para 5
of Company's letter of 20/12/88).
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
0
RecPara: Decison No. AD1189).
EmployerReps:
Section: S67
RecSigned: 16/02/89
Subject: Introduction of 3 shift working.
RecToTyping: 09/02/89
DisputeType: RE-ORGANISATION
Venue: COMPANY PREMISES
WorkerClass: OTHER PRODUCTS
DateWithdrawn:
WorkerParty: IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Worker: Mr. Devine
Body:
CD8932 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12276
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: YOUGHAL CARPET (YARNS) LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Introduction of 3 shift working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned in this dispute are employed by the
Company at its Plant in Cork. Due to changes in the market, the
Company has rationalised its production methods, and has made a
further investment in Plant.
The present working arrangements in the Plant are as follows:-
Days - 22
2 Shifts - 152
3 Shifts - 221
Permanent Nights - 25
_________
420
The Company is urgently seeking the introduction of three cycle
shift work throughout the Plant.
The Union are opposed to the Company's proposal on the grounds of
the social impact of 3 cycle shift working on some of its members,
and also because the compensatory package offered by the Company
is unacceptable, particularly in the light of the loss of overtime
earnings. Agreement could not be reached on the matter at local
level, and in September, 1988 the matter of compensation for the
proposed changes was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 20th September, 1988 the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation:-
" 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 29/8/88 under the hand of
Francis M. Jackson, Group Personnel Manager, be
increased by 50% (fifty per cent). "
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
workers in a ballot. The recommendation was subsequently appealed
by the Company to the Labour Court, and the hearing of this appeal
took place on 6th December, 1988. The Court was asked by the
parties to defer the issuing of its decision on this matter to
allow further local discussions on the introduction of 3 cycle
shift working. The local discussions did not prove successful,
and on 9th December, 1988 the matter of the introduction of 3
cycle shift working was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. (The Court subsequently decided to issue its
decision in regard to the appeal against the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation in regard to compensation. AD1189 refers:) A
conciliation conference took place on 15th December, 1988. No
agreement was reached, and on 16th January, 1989 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Union is claiming that 3 cycle shift working is not necessary,
and that the Company's compensation is inadequate. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 30th January, 1989. On 8th
February, 1989, the Court visited the factory in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is not convinced of the necessity for 3 cycle
shift working throughout the Plant. Counter proposals have
been put forward to the effect that the Company could employ a
small workforce on permanent nights. Vacancies occurring on
three shift working could be filled by transfer from permanent
nights. At present there are 25 workers employed on
night-work, so it cannot be argued that the idea is
unfeasible.
2. The majority of two shift workers are people with
long-service who have "served their time" on permanent nights
and 3 cycle shift work. They have an established expectation
of progressing on to permanent day work. They are now being
asked to bear the disruption and hardship of 3 cycle shift
work, despite their advanced years.
3. 3. The Union believes that Management have advanced the idea
of 3 cycle shift work for reasons of convenience, without
looking at the serious implications for the workers. The
level of compensation offered is totally inadequate. Apart
from the hardship involved, no consideration has been given to
the serious loss of earnings which would be incurred. At
present overtime is worked mid-week and on Saturdays (details
supplied to the Court).
4. It was accepted by the Rights Commissioner that people
currently on three shifts who will now have their expectation
of two shifts denied, have a case for compensation. This is
particularly true when it is taken into account that workers
junior to them who are currently on two shift would be
compensated for going onto three shifts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is jointly agreed by both Management and Union that
capital investment is vital for the future of the Plant, as
there had been little investment prior to 1987. The Company
has now secured investment of #3m. (details supplied to the
Court). In order to remain competitive, give an adequate
return on investment, and ensure that future capital
investment is secured, it is essential to operate 3 shifts.
2. Recent international studies have shown that very
expensive new plant and equipment should ideally be operated
for 168 hours per week to get an adequate return on
investment. This necessitates 3 cycle shift work.
Competition between the different factories in the group is
intense. Inefficiencies will lead to a rejection of any
applications for capital investment. The costs of maintaining
2 shift cycle working while 3 shifts are being phased in, are
simply prohibitative. (Details supplied to the Court).
4. It is well accepted that to maintain quality standards and
avoid unnecessary industrial relations problems etc., the
highest level of teamwork and continuity between management,
supervisory staff and operatives is essential. A continuous 3
shift system will achieve this objective. The importance of
this aspect is underlined by the fact that the Company is in
the process of obtaining internationsl standard 9003, which is
necessary to secure its markets. The Company has already in
place some arrangements with managerial, supervisory and
quality control staff to operate 3 shifts.
5. Over the past number of years there has been a rapid
change in the Company's product profile with an increased
range of quality products and the introduction of new
technology. This places much greater emphasis on selection of
employees on a suitability basis. This is not possible under
the present transfer system which is based on seniority.
Under a 3 shift system this problem would be resolved.
4. 6. The Union has suggested that the solution lies in
employing "night shift personnel on short duration" to bring
night shifts up to required manning levels. In the past this
arrangement led to continuous Industrial Relations problems
and both Union and Management accepted it as being unworkable
and unmanageable. (Details supplied to the Court).
7. Training costs will also increase as night shift operators
transfer to 3 shifts in different departments as vacancies
arise. Based on average turnover, this will result in
doubling training costs for 15 employees at a net extra cost
of #60/70,000 per annum. The net extra cost will of course
continue indefinitely.
8. In a previous recommendation dealing with a related
dispute, and a subsequent letter of clarification, the Court
appeared to recognise the principle of 3 shift operation, and
since then the Company has sought to refrain from filling day
jobs or two cycle shift jobs unless necessary.
9. The most immediate and critical problems for the Company
are in the Reeling and Winding Departments of the Company,
where 96 people are employed. An examination of the Union
proposals for these Departments show that they are impractical
and too expensive. Retraining costs alone would be
prohibitative. (Details supplied to the Court).
10. At present there is an additional #.50m. worth of
machinery on site awaiting installation. It is imperative
that this machinery be got up and running if the future
viability of the Company is to be assured. The Company will
in future be run on a more streamlined basis, and it is vital
that all sections run smoothly as planned.
11. The claim for payments to 3 shift operators for loss of
expectation of a two shift job is unsustainable as the number
of vacancies which arise on average each year is such that
employees would have to wait 12 years before transferring to 2
shifts. It is also important to note that all employees on 3
shifts were employed to operate 3 shifts or whatever shift
rota was required by the Company and no guarantees were given
by the Company.
12. Where changes in shift rota result in loss of overtime
by employees on Saturday cleaning operations, the Company is
prepared to provide alternative work so that loss of earnings
will not occur. The Company does recognise the inconvenience
to employees entailed in changing shifts, and has offered lead
in payments. In the light of the above arguments, the Company
requests the Court to recommend in its favour.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court understands the Union's concern regarding the
social impact of an extension of 3 shift working on some of its
members but must consider this concern in the context of the state
of the business and the corresponding long-term security of
employment for all the workers. The Company has succeeded in
securing significant capital investment and also in avoiding any
forced redundancy in its present re-organisation plans. So an
opportunity now exists for the Company to consolidate and further
improve its market position and thus secure the positions of its
workers. Full co-operation of both parties is essential to avail
of this opportunity and the immediate requirement is to make full
use of the newly installed modern equipment in the most
cost-effective way. The Court is satisfied that this requires the
extension of 3 shift working as proposed by the Company because
the alternative proposed by the Union would inevitably involve
large re-training expenditure and lead to continual disruption of
production.
The Court therefore recommends that the Union accepts the
Company's proposals for the extension of 3 shift working (Company
letters 20/12/88 refers). In making this recommendation the Court
has taken into account the Company's undertaking to retain some
2 shift and day jobs (personal to holders) and to introduce
opportunities to offset losses in overtime arising from the
introduction of 3 shift operations for certain employees on
Saturdays cleaning operations. Pending the introduction of
3 shift operations throughout the Plant the Court further
recommends that there should be no claiming of jobs (vide para 5
of Company's letter of 20/12/88).
* (This recommendation should be read in conjunction with Appeal
Decison No. AD1189).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
16th February, 1989
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.