Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89892 Case Number: LCR12746 Section / Act: S67 Parties: F.B.D. INSURANCE PLC - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union for the introduction of a pilot job-sharing scheme.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is not convinced that the nature of the work in the
underwriting department is such as to lend itself to the clear
division between workers, required by job-sharing, without
potentially serious disruption of the business of the department.
The Court therefore does not consider a pilot scheme to be
warranted and does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89892 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12746
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: F.B.D. INSURANCE PLC
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the introduction of a pilot job-sharing
scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs in excess of two hundred staff with
approximately one hundred based at head office in Dublin. In 1989
the Union carried out a survey of its members in the Company
regarding the introduction of a pilot job-sharing scheme (details
supplied to the Court). Thirty of the fifty nine workers who
responded to the survey felt that their jobs were suitable for
job-sharing and five workers indicated immediate interest. The
Union consequently made a claim for the introduction of
job-sharing on a pilot basis. The Company rejected the claim. No
agreement was reached at local level and the matter was referred
on 11th May, 1989 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
A conciliation conference was held on 4th July, 1989 at which no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred on 8th December,
1989 to a full hearing of the Labour Court which took place on
24th January, 1990.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union survey demonstrates that a demand for
job-sharing exists within the workforce. This demand mainly
arises from female workers who lack any basic form of
workplace childcare facilities. The Union recognises that the
Company would not entertain a claim for child care facilities
and takes the pragmatic view that job-sharing can satisfy some
of the requirements of the workforce.
2. The Union accepts that the claims department is unsuitable
for job-sharing arrangements. However the underwriting
department is suitable for job-sharing since work in that
department can be carried out by any person in a section and
processed successfully and efficiently. The majority of the
thirty workers who responded positively to the Union survey
work in the underwriting department in non-supervisory jobs.
3. 3. Job-sharing offers the following benefits to any company
and staff:-
(a) MANAGEMENT
- maximum quality staff at peak hours,
- the retention of experienced and qualified staff,
- even greater commitment from those participating
arising from greater job satisfaction.
- higher productivity through the easing of domestic or
personal responsibilities.
- a reduction in overtime arising from greater
productivity.
- a reduction in staff turnover,
- greater leave and absence cover,
- additional resources to draw on at peak or crisis
times.
(b) STAFF
- income while attending to domestic or personal
responsibilities.
- retention of employment/career during period of
outside responsibilities.
- increased motivation and job satisfaction.
- opportunity for study,
- pursuit of outside interests.
4. The Union believes that most if not all of the above
benefits would be available to the Company. It is the Union's
view that the Company has never analysed these benefits and
has adopted a negative approach to job-sharing because it does
not want to get into something new and become a trend setter
in the insurance sector.
5. The Union is seeking a job-sharing pilot scheme which
would operate without commitment on either side to the
introduction of a permanent scheme. The pilot scheme should
involve two jobs for a period not less than six months. The
Union feels that a pilot scheme would convince the Company of
the mutual benefits available from a job-sharing scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is satisfied that the introduction of
job-sharing, even on a trial basis, would be disruptive and
contrary to the interests of the Company.
2. Job-sharing is not a feature in the insurance sector in
this country and therefore it cannot be argued that the
Company is out of line with the market place.
3. The Company places emphasis on direct dealing with the
public rather than through brokers. Job-sharing would disrupt
this customer oriented philosophy.
4. 4. Job-sharing would not be suitable in the claims and
underwriting departments of the Company. In the underwriting
department continuity is all important and job-sharing
arrangements would be very unsuitable and would lead to
inefficiency in the process of work.
5. Staff in the underwriting department are experienced in
the Company's philosophy and practice having been trained from
school-leaving age. Job-sharing would necessitate the
recruitment of new staff who would not have the requisite
experience and training in the Company's particular approach
to underwriting and claims.
6. The Company has always been prepared to accommodate staff
where practicable. However, job-sharing should only be
introduced when both sides agree that a mutual benefit will
derive. The Company is not in favour of the introduction of a
pilot job-sharing scheme and should not be expected to set
trends in this area.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is not convinced that the nature of the work in the
underwriting department is such as to lend itself to the clear
division between workers, required by job-sharing, without
potentially serious disruption of the business of the department.
The Court therefore does not consider a pilot scheme to be
warranted and does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___9th__February,___1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman