LCR12396A

Subject:
Claim for compensation in respect of loss of shift rota.

Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the system of regular
rostering required by the Company comes so close to the elements
of shift working that some compensation is due to the workers
involved. The Court does not consider that such compensation
should be on the scale involved through loss of ordinary shift
premium as the change in work pattern and life style required is
not so radical. The Court therefore recommends that the parties
negotiate a lesser amount than was paid in those circumstances.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD89119 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12396A

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67


PARTIES: TARA MINES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)

and

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE FINANCE

SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation in respect of loss of shift rota.

BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns three laboratory samplers who provided
week-end cover in the Company's laboratory from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays when required. The workers
had worked this roster for eleven years. In October, 1987
week-end cover was reduced by 50% in the laboratory and the Union
claimed compensation for loss of overtime on behalf of twelve
workers including the three workers here concerned. A subsequent
Labour Court Recommendation rejected this claim (L.C.R. 11683
refers). In March, 1988 the week-end rota system was completely
eliminated by the Company. The Union submitted a claim for
compensation on behalf of three of the twelve workers involved in
the original claim. The Union argues that their loss of earnings
(details supplied) could more accurately be described as loss of a
shift rather than overtime. The Company rejects the claim stating
that the workers were employed on day work and that the loss was
still a loss of overtime. No agreement was reached in local level
discussions and the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 9th November, 1988. A
conciliation conference was held on the 16th December, 1988 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 16th February,
1989. A Court hearing was held on the 16th March, 1989.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Union referred the claim for loss of overtime, on
behalf of 12 workers to the Court in 1987, the Company was
going through a period of financial difficulty and the Court
ruled against the claim. While no explanation was given by
the Court it must be assumed that the only reason for refusing
compensation was the financial position of the Company.


Because of the difficult financial position of the Company
the three workers concerned in this claim had their rota
system completely eliminated in March, 1988 thereby reducing
the rota system payments to zero. There is now a complete
turn about in the financial prospects of the Company as the
price of zinc has increased very substantially, and the
currency exchange rate has improved considerably. Despite
this situation the Company expects the workers concerned to
accept a 25% reduction in their living standards without
compensation.

2. Since the issue of L.C.R. 11683 the Company have
negotiated a compensation package for all other groups of
workers who have been removed from the shift system or
suffered a loss of overtime. The Company argues that there
were no payments made for loss of overtime and that they had
agreed a lump sum payment with the unions to cover all
outstanding claims in the group. However when the Company
paid the compensation they were well aware that the workers
were compensated for loss of overtime within that package
because the Company paid the cheques to individuals. Some of
these payments resulted in compensation of up to #10,000 per
person. Members of every union on site have now received
compensation except those represented by this Union.

3. Whether the Company accept the hours the workers concerned
worked as a rota system or overtime they cannot deny that the
scheme has been in operation for eleven years without
interruption. The agreement whereby the workers concerned
provided week-end and bank holiday cover was regarded by the
Company as absolutely essential. The workers organised a rota
system amongst themselves and if for any reason they could not
meet their commitments under the rota there were always
alternative arrangements made within the Group to provide the
necessary cover. The overtime required under the rota scheme
was paid for at normal overtime rates. The Company cannot
ignore the fact that all other unions at the site have been
compensated nor can they ignore the fact that the fortunes of
the Company have changed for the better, with an approximate
40% increase in production per worker. In all the
circumstances, including the precedents already set by
previous Labour Court recommendations, the Union believes that
the workers concerned are entitled to substantial
compensation, in the region of two years loss.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1977, for approximately four months following start up
(August to November) four members of the laboratory staff
worked a temporary shift arrangement to overcome initial
problems. A special payment was made to the workers involved
when this arrangement ended (details supplied to the Court).
The workers here concerned are employed as day workers and
have not worked on any shift rota. When the Company commenced
production it had machinery installed for use in the analysis
of material from the mill. At the outset of operations it was
stated by the Company, and known to the workers that as
familiarity with and proficiency in the use of the technology
improved, the frequency for check sampling would reduce. This
case is not therefore one where people started on a certain
pattern of work which was expected to continue unchanged.

2. In January, 1987 the Company considered that it was
essential to reduce overall operating costs. This included
voluntary redundancies, alterations in shift rosters and the
elimination of unnecessary overtime. Where shift changes
actually took place, compensation payments were agreed with
the unions concerned following conciliation conferences in the
Labour Court. Details of the relevant agreements have been
supplied to the Court. None of these agreements contained any
payment for loss of overtime. Subsequent to the agreements on
compensation for shift changes with other groups the
laboratory staff submitted a claim to the Company for similar
compensation for alterations to their "shift rota." The
Company rejected the claim as no shift change had taken place.

3. The workers concerned in this claim are employed by the
Company on a day work basis. No alterations have occurred in
their conditions of employment i.e. hours of work etc, to
warrant compensation and they had a claim for compensation for
loss of overtime rejected by the Court in 1988. They cannot
now pursue that same claim on the basis that compensation
should be paid for an alleged loss of "shift rota." The
Company must remain consistent in its approach to compensation
claims of this nature in view of agreements already reached
with other large groups, as any deviation from that policy
would result in long term serious industrial relations
problems over the whole operation.


RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the system of regular
rostering required by the Company comes so close to the elements
of shift working that some compensation is due to the workers
involved. The Court does not consider that such compensation
should be on the scale involved through loss of ordinary shift
premium as the change in work pattern and life style required is
not so radical. The Court therefore recommends that the parties
negotiate a lesser amount than was paid in those circumstances.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

John O'Connell
______________________
16th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.