Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89323 Case Number: LCR12447 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 17 clerical staff concerning a change in rostered working hours in the Ringsend Terminal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submission from both parties
and taking into account the Company's requirement to reduce
manning levels in order to maintain profitability recommends as
follows:-
1. The Union enter into negotiations with the Company
on the proposed new manning levels. The Court
envisages that these negotiations should be
concluded within a period of one month from date of
this recommendation.
2. The existing rosters remain in place during these
negotiations and for a period of 2 months after the
introduction of the agreed new manning levels.
3. During the period at 2 above the Union co-operate
with Management in arranging a holiday schedule.
4. At the conclusion of the said period which should
be considered as a trial period for the new manning
levels, the parties meet to review the operation.
If at that time it is apparent that the Company
cannot work at an effective level the parties
should agree to negotiate new work rosters.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89323 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12447
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: COAL DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 17 clerical staff concerning a
change in rostered working hours in the Ringsend Terminal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Rostered working hours have been in operation in the Company
since 1978. Employees work longer hours in the winter and shorter
hours in the summer to meet the seasonal nature of the coal trade.
During the winter period Group A would work 8 am to 6 pm each
alternate week and Group B would work 8.30 am to 6.30 pm in
rotation with Group A. During the summer season the groups worked
alternative weeks from 8 am to 1 pm alternating to 12 noon to 4 pm
the following week. This arrangement gives each employee an
average of 37.5 hours per week over the entire year. The
employees receive a rostered hours allowance averaging #35 per
week. As part of the Company's rationalisation plan the Company
has decided to eliminate the rostered hours arrangement and revert
to the standard hours arrangement whereby clerical staff will work
from 8 am to 4.30 pm throughout the year. Notwithstanding the
fact that the rostered hours arrangement had resulted in a salary
increase in addition to the flat rostered hours payment, the
Company did not propose to reduce basic wages, but did withdraw
the payment of the #35 allowance from 17th April, 1989, the date
on which the standard hours arrangement was to come into effect.
The Union opposed the change saying that it adversely affects the
employees terms and conditions which have been in operation since
1978. The parties could not reach agreement locally and on 13th
April, 1989, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place 24th
April, 1989. As no agreement could be reached at the conciliation
conference the matter was referred on 9th May, 1989, to the Labour
Court, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 25th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in profit, declares itself to be so and has
also declared its intention to remain in profit. This,
therefore, is not a 'survival' issue.
2. The Company, over recent years, have achieved considerable
labour savings. On the basis of previous savings and job cuts
proposed in the 1989 rationalisation proposal, the Company
stand to save a further #100,000. This is far in excess of
any savings accruing from the elimination of rostered hours.
Indeed, the elimination of rostered hours would provide little
or no savings given that there would be a need for ongoing
overtime by the staff during the 'coal season'.
3. The Company have stated that the flow of business during
the 'coal season' does not warrant cover to 6pm. The workers
on the ground say that they work up to 9pm, on an overtime
basis, when boats are in. The Company's assertion is not
supported by any evidence.
4. The Company further argues that with reduced numbers
arising from proposed redundancies in 1989, (something which
has not been agreed) there will not be enough staff to cover
the time rosters. In reality, there is little enough trade in
the summer, with minimal requirement for staff cover. This,
of course, is the whole rationale behind rostered hours in the
first place. To have the total staff in attendance during the
summer, when there is little or no trade, flies completely in
the face of logic. So illogical is it that it has been
suggested that it is merely a device for manufacturing more
redundancies in 1990, by pointing to the fact that there would
be an obvious surplus of staff during the summer months.
5. The workers are confident that even with further
de-manning, on an agreed basis, in 1989/90, the summer rosters
are operable on the current basis. If necessary, regulation
of annual leave could ensure that too many staff are not on
leave at the one time.
6. The rostered hours are part of the workers' terms and
conditions of employment. Any change in the hours worked
would completely disrupt the workers' living patterns. They
also stand to lose up to #35 each per week (#1,800 per annum).
This is a significant loss by any standard and totally
unwarranted given the profitable state of the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For economic reasons it is essential to reduce the number
of terminal clerical staff from 17 to 13. The need for this
reduction is operationally feasible and economically
essential. Such a reduction can be accommodated more easily
on the grounds of working the standard hours throughout the
year rather than having half the staff missing during the
summer period under the rostered hours arrangement. The
effects of this needs closer examination. With a staff of
thirteen in the terminal working rostered hours, this would
result six working on shift A and seven working on shift B.
Given that holidays must be taken in the summer period either
two or three employees would be on holidays at any given time
and using current absenteeism statistics one member of staff
would be out sick every other week. The nett result of this
would mean that throughout the summer the early or late roster
would have only three or four employees working to cover quite
significant areas which require manning.
2. The movement away from late operations means that there is
not still the same requirement for clerical staff to work late
hours during the winter. It is recognised however that some
overtime may be worked between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm in the
winter, and this will be made available to the staff but it is
not envisaged that it will apply to the same degree as applied
when the trade was better.
3. It is essential that all unnecessary costs be eliminated
by the Company. We must stress there is no case for retention
of the rostered hours allowance of #1,800.00 per annum as this
was compensation for lost overtime potential because of the
introduction of the rostered hours. During the 1978
negotiations whereas the Union were party to and involved in
agreeing the new rostered hours structure, the Union side went
to great lengths to demonstrate that high losses of overtime
earnings would result in the transfer of the hours 4.30 to
6.30 into the basic working week. Only after intensive
negotiation was it agreed that compensation for changing to
rostered hours would be a 5% salary increase and a #600 per
annum lump sum. The latter, which has now grown to #1,800.00
per annum, will cease to be paid when the rostered hours
arrangement ceases.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submission from both parties
and taking into account the Company's requirement to reduce
manning levels in order to maintain profitability recommends as
follows:-
1. The Union enter into negotiations with the Company
on the proposed new manning levels. The Court
envisages that these negotiations should be
concluded within a period of one month from date of
this recommendation.
2. The existing rosters remain in place during these
negotiations and for a period of 2 months after the
introduction of the agreed new manning levels.
3. During the period at 2 above the Union co-operate
with Management in arranging a holiday schedule.
4. At the conclusion of the said period which should
be considered as a trial period for the new manning
levels, the parties meet to review the operation.
If at that time it is apparent that the Company
cannot work at an effective level the parties
should agree to negotiate new work rosters.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___28th___June,___1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman