Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89353 Case Number: LCR12460 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURY IRELAND PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning the proposed change to two-shift working in the Company's Despatch area.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the reasons advanced by the
Company for changing to two-shift working in the Despatch area are
sound and reasonable and accordingly recommends that its proposals
be accepted by the Unions.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89353 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12460
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND PLC
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed change to two-shift working in
the Company's Despatch area.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute involves six workers, two of whom work straight
days and four of whom work nights only. The Company is proposing
to introduce a two shift operation in order to eliminate problems
and improve the running and management of the area. The current
staffing arrangements plus the proposed changes are as follows:-
EXISTING STRUCTURE:
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOB TITLE SHIFT SHIFT TIMES NO. OF JOB
HOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Assembly Days 8.00 a.m. 8
Servicing/Assembly Days to 2
Trucker/Loading Ramp Days 4.30 p.m. 1
Van Loading Nights 11.30 p.m. 2
Van Washing Nights to 1
Van Driving Nights 7.30 a.m. 1
Management: At present there is only one Despatch
Manager working on Days (8.00 a.m. -
4.30 p.m.). The night situation is
overseen by a production manager from
the factory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
Assembly Days 8 (As was)
Trucker/Loading Ramp Days 1 (As was)
Servicing Assembly/Loading 2 Shift 4 (2x2 Shift)
Van Washing/Driving 2 Shift 2 (1x2 Shift)
TOTAL 15
Clause 2(a) of the 1976 Company/Union Agreement allows Management
to alter shifts as required (details supplied to the Court). The
Unions accept that Management has this right but contest whether
valid reasons exist for the proposed change in operations in the
Despatch area. Following failure to agree the matter at local
level, the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on the 17th April, 1989. In the absence of agreement
at a conciliation conference on the 15th May, the Company
requested that the matter be referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Unions agreed to this
referral. A Court hearing was held on the 21st June, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All the sections of the Despatch area are interdependent
and liaison between the sections is essential for the smooth
running of operations. The present shift system however does
not allow any direct liaison between the Assembly section and
the Loading section. This, in addition to not having a
manager on nights with direct responsibility for the area,
results in delays in dealing with problems. This, in turn,
gives rise to further problems, some of which can have serious
consequences (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Despatch area operates all year round and therefore
holidays have to be accommodated mainly during the normal
delivery periods. Putting the operation on two-shift would
enable the Company to maximise the utilisation of the staff in
the area.
3. Loading on nights necessitates opening the loading ramp
which holds stock valued up to #0.24m. This creates a major
security risk. The site at Cadbury's is over 40 acres and
despite the latest technology and high security cover, there
are still a large number of break-ins, the most recent being
an armed robbery on 29th May last. It also poses an internal
security problem. Under the Company's proposal, the whole
stockroom area can be closed at night.
4. The throughput has reached a level where it is now
giving rise to a shortage of holding space. At present,
valuable space is being taken up unnecessarily holding loads
for loading on nights. Loading the vans as they return during
the day will make this space available.
5. The requirement to transfer shift in response to
changing circumstances is clearly provided for in the
Company/Union agreement. This requirement is common to all
groups and is essential to the Company's ability to respond to
changing demands. It has been clearly established and upheld
by the Labour Court in previous cases including a case
involving production employees (LCR12267 refers).
6. The agreement sets out agreed terms in relation to
notice, shift guarantee and compensation for shift transfer.
Each of the employees will receive their appropriate
entitlement under this agreement. They have the right to stay
on their present shift patterns and apply for alternative jobs
if they do not wish to transfer. None of the six employees
opted to do this.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has argued that the agreement between it and
the production unions give it the right to alter shifts if in
its view the change is justified. Insofar as the Unions are
concerned any such changes must be justified because members'
positions could be disadvantaged by any such change. The jobs
which people currently hold in that area are jobs which were
advertised as a single-shift or straightforward working jobs.
A number of the people concerned have long service with the
Company (ranging from 18 years to 35 years). They applied for
these jobs because they were not subject to shift arrangements
or shift patterns.
2. The Company has argued that the system as currently
operated is there for historical reasons when vanmen stayed
out to build up hours and that the new pay deal which is in
operation has eliminated this practice, allowing vans to
return much earlier, thereby doing away with the need for
night work. The new pay deal to which the Company referred is
in fact a comprehensive agreement on transport which has been
in operation for 13 years. If there were new circumstances
arising out of that agreement it is strange that they haven't
been dealt with earlier.
3. The Unions refute the Company's claim that loading at
night creates a security risk.
5. 4. It is difficult to accept the Company's argument
concerning increased throughput in view of the fact that a
little over a year ago the Company produced figures at the
Labour Court to show a downward trend in throughout as a
reason for not replacing particular people in the transport
area (which is serviced by the Despatch and Assembly areas).
There is no evidence to suggest any notable increase in
throughput which would necessitate the change which Management
is now seeking.
5. The alleviation of space difficulties is not a major
difficulty. At particular periods in time there are up to
half a dozen loads in hand on the particular ramp which have
been made up several days before they would be required. With
proper organisation in this area, any problems with space can
be rectified.
6. Part of the problems that may have arisen arise from the
Company's failure to maintain manning-levels at the agreed
levels. Any problems in an area should be identified and
discussed with those in the local area with a view to
resolving them without making fundamental changes to workers'
work patterns. There is no justification for altering
long-standing working arrangements which will considerably
disadvantage senior staff and the Court is respectfully
requested to recommend in favour of the Unions' rejection of
the Company's proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the reasons advanced by the
Company for changing to two-shift working in the Despatch area are
sound and reasonable and accordingly recommends that its proposals
be accepted by the Unions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
10th July, 1989 -----------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman