Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89831 Case Number: LCR12714 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SWISS WIRE LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 24 day workers concerning the introduction of a 3 cycle shift in the seaming department.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the general obligation to work
shift work, as contained in the Company/Union agreement, applies
to the workers concerned. Bearing in mind the Company's
undertaking to take account of the domestic difficulties which
might arise in individual cases, the Court recommends that the
workers concerned agree to the introduction of a shift operation
which will provide for an even distribution of the workforce over
the 3 shifts. The Court is further of the view that the Company
might consider some assistance towards the provision of child care
facilities for the small proportion of workers who might need such
facilities.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89831 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12714
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SWISS WIRE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 24 day workers concerning the
introduction of a 3 cycle shift in the seaming department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been in operation since 1974, manufacturing
synthetic fabrics for the paper industry. The workers concerned
in this claim are all female and work in the seaming department.
When most of these workers were employed shift work for females
was forbidden by law, as a result they were only obliged to work
days - 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. This practice continued until 1983,
when the Company began to introduce automatic machines into the
seaming department. Up to then the seaming operation had been
entirely manual. The existence of the automatic machines prompted
the Company to seek shift working in the seaming department. This
was resisted by the Union and a compromise was finally agreed
where by day workers would continue to work days only and the
Company would recruit new employees to work evening and night
shift. Between 1985 and 1989, the Company gradually introduced
the machinery into the seaming department, thereby almost entirely
eliminating manual operating. The machinery is now up to its full
complement for the foreseeable future. The current manning in the
seaming department is as follows:
Days 8 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. 24 Workers
2 cycle evenings 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. 9 "
2 cycle nights 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 5 "
Permanent evenings 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. 3
Permanent nights 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 3 "
___
44 "
The Company maintains that, having its full quota of machines, it
is imperative that agreement be reached whereby the Company would
have an even spread of workers in the seaming department, over the
full day. This is rejected by the Union on the basis of the
hardship it would cause for the workers concerned. As agreement
could not be reached locally the issue was referred on 20th June,
1989, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
19th July, 1989, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court,
on 10th November, 1989, for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 13th December, 1989, in Tralee.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers, many of whom have worked in the seaming
department since 1974, were employed solely to work days.
They were never advised that they would have to work shift.
2. Many of these workers have young families and if their
hours of work were changed they would find it impossible to
set anybody to care for their children during the late hours.
Added to this hardship, many of the workers live outside
Tralee town and have transport arranged with family and
friends. If their hours of work are changed then transport
may not be available and they could be unable to attend work.
3. If shift working is forced upon these workers, it will
either result in a further dispute or litigation for
constructive dismissal, as many of the workers would be forced
out of their jobs. At best any change would cause grave
hardship for the workers concerned and would be a major breach
in their conditions of employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is a condition of the workers' employment that they
work shift as required by the Company. This condition is set
out in the Company/Union agreement (details provided to the
Court).
2. The existing system in the seaming department is a very
inefficient distribution of the workforce. There are 12
seaming machines in that department, and the Company requires
16 workers per shift, (12 operating machines and 4 ancillary
workers). The current system creates an overlap between
workers on days and those on evenings. During this overlap
there are 36 workers for the machines. Only a transfer to
shift as required will eliminate this serious inefficiency.
3. The Company, which is in a loss making situation, is
becoming increasingly uncompetitive vis-a-vis the market,
where the majority of competitors are operating automatic
seaming machines and 2 machines per worker is common. The
current system frustrates delivery and diminishes customer
satisfaction to the detriment of the whole business.
4. The Company has been, and will remain, willing to
accommodate individuals who have specific reasons for working
a specific shift, provided it does not interfere with the
efficiency of the department.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the general obligation to work
shift work, as contained in the Company/Union agreement, applies
to the workers concerned. Bearing in mind the Company's
undertaking to take account of the domestic difficulties which
might arise in individual cases, the Court recommends that the
workers concerned agree to the introduction of a shift operation
which will provide for an even distribution of the workforce over
the 3 shifts. The Court is further of the view that the Company
might consider some assistance towards the provision of child care
facilities for the small proportion of workers who might need such
facilities.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
23rd January, 1990. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.