Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89519 Case Number: LCR12599 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NACANCO (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims by the Union on behalf of production shift workers concerning: (a) Appointments to positions as plant operatives. (b) Booking of annual leave by 4 shift workers. (c) Benefit in the case of an industrial injury.
Recommendation:
11. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues and recommends as follows:-
Appointment of plant operators
The Court takes the view that the Company has had due regard
to the rights of existing employees in respect of these key
appointments and therefore recommends that the Company's
approach to further appointments be accepted.
Annual leave entitlements
It is the view of the Court that the current practice with
regard to the provision of annual leave for 4 shift workers
accords with standard industrial practice, and the Court does
not therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Injury benefits
The Court recommends that the procedure proposed by the
Company in respect of a 2nd work accident be accepted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89519 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12599
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NACANCO (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union on behalf of production shift workers
concerning:
(a) Appointments to positions as plant operatives.
(b) Booking of annual leave by 4 shift workers.
(c) Benefit in the case of an industrial injury.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
No agreement was reached on the above mentioned claims at local
level and on the 15th February, 1989, they were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be
reached at a conciliation conference held on 14th July, 1989,
(earliest date suitable to the parties) and the claims were
referred, on 24th July, 1989, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 19th September, 1989, in Waterford.
CLAIM (A) Appointment to positions as plant operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company had 24 vacancies for plant operatives in its new
plant. Of these 12 were filled from existing operatives from the
old plant. Twenty existing workers applied for the remaining
positions. After interview only 3 were appointed. The Union
claims that by reference to any standard this result is unfair and
feels the Company is discriminating against its own employees in
favour of external candidates. The Company rejected the claim
saying that where possible vacancies are filled by existing
employees but in this instance only 3 of the existing employees
were found to be suitable.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has always accepted that promotional
opportunities would be available to existing workers, although
not necessarily to the most senior applicant. The acceptance
by the workers of new terms and conditions of employment in
the context of the setting up of a new plant was influenced by
a promise of additional jobs and by the understanding that
promotional opportunities would be created for existing
employees.
2. The Company indicated that it intended to recruit the
remaining plant operatives from outside skilled personnel.
Six outsiders have been appointed despite the fact that the
Union was in dispute on the matter.
3. No prior indication was given to the Union that any
special skill or requirement was required for the position.
Nor was any attempt made by the Company to train staff for the
positions during a 6 month slack period while the new plant
was being built.
4. The positions in question do not require technical skills
that could not be learned by most of the existing workforce.
These would have an advantage over outside workers since they
are already familiar with the Company's operations. The least
they could have expected was a trial to assess their
competence and suitability. The workers believe that the
internal interviews were in fact only a sham because up to 12
months prior to the interviews outsiders were being canvassed
for the positions.
5. The Union wants a total reversal of the Company's decision
in this matter and that all vacancies be filled from the
internal applicants. There should be a trial period and an
assessment by an agreed third party before any applicant is
declared unsuitable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The deployment of skilled plant operatives is a crucial
element in meeting the Company's objective of operating the
new plant at maximum efficiency levels to justify investment
of over #20m. and to be able to compete effectively. The
Company reserves the right to make appointments on the grounds
of suitability.
2. Where possible, the Company has made appointments from
within. Of the 24 machine operative positions, 15 have been
filled internally. In the new plant 4 additional Q.C.
Inspector positions have arisen and all these have been filled
internally. In this particular instance a sufficient pool of
suitable internal candidates did not exist and some positions
had to be filled from outside.
CLAIM (B) Booking of annual leave for 4 shift workers.
BACKGROUND:
5. The Company employs '4 shift' workers whose work schedules
involve a variation in the number of hours worked each week -
Week 1 36 hours
Week 2 48 hours
Week 3 36 hours
Week 4 48 hours
They work an 84 hour fortnight, 80 hours basic and 4 hours
overtime. The overtime is included for the purpose of calculating
holiday pay. They have an annual leave entitlement of 196 hours.
When they take their annual leave the Company books them in for
the number of hours they were due to work for that week (i.e.
weeks one and three, 36 hours each week, weeks two and four, 48
hours each week), thus the 2 hours per week overtime is included
in their total holiday hours. The Union claims that only basic
hours should be booked against a workers annual leave. The claim
is rejected by the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. When a worker takes his 2 weeks annual leave, he expects
to use up 80 hours of his entitlement, however, because of the
Company's practice he is deemed to have used 84 hours. If a
day worker, who works Monday to Friday and does 8 hours
compulsory overtime per week, takes 2 weeks leave, he will
only have 10 days booked against his leave entitlement. If
overtime was included it would be 12 days. This discriminates
against the 4-shift workers.
2. The pressure and difficulties of 4-shift working are well
recognised and it is accepted that there is a need for extra
holiday entitlements for such workers. The Company does not
provide as good an entitlement as many other companies and
their method of booking actually reduces the leave entitlement
available.
3. The current dilution of the annual leave entitlement would
increase in direct ratio to any reduction in hours of work
which may come into effect in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company's approach to the taking of annual leave is
that the worker should book the number of hours he would
otherwise have worked. Thus, taking week two as annual leave,
reduces entitlement by 48 hours and taking week 1 reduces it
by 36 hours. This is common practice in industry for 4-shift
holidays.
2. The 4-shift workers already have an annual leave
entitlement which is in excess of that agreed with day workers
who have a leave entitlement of 168 hours per year.
CLAIM (C) Benefit in the case of an industrial injury.
BACKGROUND:
8. Under clause 23 of the Company/Union Agreement payment is made
for periods of absence caused by injury sustained at work, subject
to the refunding to the Company of all social welfare benefits.
The Agreement also states that "the Company will pay the first 5
days for any one accident in a rolling 12 month period. For any
subsequent accident within that time, payment for the first 3 days
will not be paid." (Under the previous agreement all such
absences were covered from the first day). There is no problem
with the first accident, however, the Union claims that given the
3 waiting days for a subsequent accident, the workers should not
have to refund the social welfare benefit. The Company rejected
the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The system operated by the Company, whereby, no payment is
made for the first 3 days in respect of any subsequent
accident, has the effect of penalising a worker if he suffers
an accident at work.
2. The Company's contribution in the case of subsequent
accidents is limited to 2 days' pay at most, which together
with the a worker's social welfare benefit will, in most
cases, leave the recipient well short of his normal net wage.
3. The requirement to refund social welfare benefit in the
case of subsequent accidents should be removed. The term "any
subsequent accident" can apply to a third or fourth accident,
not only a second accident, as the Company has implied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company/Union Agreement states that "social security
benefits where applicable must be claimed and cheques received
must be addressed in favour of the Company." There is no
reason why this provision should not be upheld.
2. Prior to 1986, the Company paid the first 7 days for any
one accident in a rolling 12 month period. However, this was
changed to 5 days under the 26th wage round agreement. That
wage agreement, (which arose out of L.C.R. 10643), involved
substantial improvements in pay and conditions, and under it
certain changes in conditions and practices operated to the
benefit of the Company. The Company has upheld its part of
that agreement and expects the Union to do likewise.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues and recommends as follows:-
Appointment of plant operators
The Court takes the view that the Company has had due regard
to the rights of existing employees in respect of these key
appointments and therefore recommends that the Company's
approach to further appointments be accepted.
Annual leave entitlements
It is the view of the Court that the current practice with
regard to the provision of annual leave for 4 shift workers
accords with standard industrial practice, and the Court does
not therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Injury benefits
The Court recommends that the procedure proposed by the
Company in respect of a 2nd work accident be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
17th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.