Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90404 Case Number: LCR13129 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ORMONDE BRICK LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning shift rotation.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the present financial/competitive position of the Company the
Court recommends that in the light of the changed operational
circumstances of the shifts the Union agree now to non rotational
shifts, and that the premium for evening and night shift be
retained at 1/5th and 1/3rd respectively with no premium for the
day work.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90404 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13129
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ORMONDE BRICK LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning shift rotation.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are a total of sixty workers employed in the Company on
production, packing and ancillary work. In April, 1989 the
Company introduced an evening shift, (in addition to day
production). This was non-rotating and the workers on it were
paid shift rate. There are currently fourteen workers on evening
shift. The Union is claiming that the concept of rotating shifts
should be re-established and that the Company/Union Agreement
provides for rotating shift at a rate of 1/5 for day to evening.
It also claims that workers not on shift rate when the two shifts
were established should be paid shift rate and workers forced onto
non rotating evening shift should be paid a higher shift rate for
the relevant period. This was rejected by the Company on the
basis that it cannot afford any extra costs and the evening shift
is a skeleton one which is composed of permanent workers who
volunteered for shift work and temporary workers recruited
specifically for shift work. Agreement could not be reached at
local level and on 14th May, 1990 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 12th July, 1990 at which no progress was
made and on 16th July, 1990 the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 13th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union agreement provides for shift work and
states that these can be changed by agreement (details
supplied to the Court). The agreement also provides for
rotating shift rates of 1/5 for day to evening rotation. The
Company broke this agreement when it pressurised workers into
non rotating shift, without negotiation and agreement. If the
practice was to continue it would effectively establish day
work as a shift to which no shift rate was paid even if
evening or night shifts were in operation. It would also mean
that workers on non rotating evening shift with the unsocial
hours this entails, would be paid a shift rate applicable to
rotation shifts which provide for day work every two to three
weeks. The concept of rotating shifts must be re-established,
workers not on shift rate when the two shifts were established
should be paid shift rate and workers forced onto non rotating
evening shift should be paid a higher shift rate for the
relevant period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In recent years the Company has augmented its day
production and packing operations on an intermittent basis
with a skeleton shift, which has consisted of permanent
workers who volunteered for shift work and temporary workers
recruited specifically for shift work. The current shift
operation is required due to low productivity and efficiency
levels. Over the last number of years the Company has
experienced serious financial trading and
productivity/efficiency problems. The position in the market
is also serious and competition is increasing at home, from
the U.K. and Europe. The levels of productivity and
efficiency in the Company are considerably out of line with
our counterparts in Ireland, the U.K. and Europe. The Company
has been trying to improve the situation (details supplied to
the Court). Labour costs make up a significant proportion of
the production costs and it is essential that these are
reduced. If a rotating shift is introduced labour costs will
increase and this would seriously affect the future viability
of the Company and result in substantial job losses. In all
the circumstances the Union's claim should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the present financial/competitive position of the Company the
Court recommends that in the light of the changed operational
circumstances of the shifts the Union agree now to non rotational
shifts, and that the premium for evening and night shift be
retained at 1/5th and 1/3rd respectively with no premium for the
day work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________________
20th December, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./M.F.