Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90458 Case Number: LCR13055 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DE LA RUE SMURFIT - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the extension of shift working arrangements.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company's proposal for resolving the dispute
be accepted subject to an increase of the amount of compensation
to #500 to the nine employees. This payment is due because of the
particular circumstances of the case and is not to be deemed as
setting a precedent for other workers.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90458 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13055
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DE LA RUE SMURFIT
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the extension of shift working
arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in security printing. It employs 160
people. For a number of years the Company has been operating
limited double day shift working among its 60 machine operators on
a voluntary and rota basis. The Company sought to extend this
arrangement by introducing permanent shift working and extending
the number of people working on shift. The Union indicated that
they had no objection to new entrants working shift but for the
employees presently employed shift working must be voluntary and
by agreement as per an 1984 Company/Union Agreement.
3. As the parties failed to reach agreement at local level the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 3rd August, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on
7th August, 1990. The Company put forward the following
proposals:-
Three temporary workers to be made permanent and required to work
a double day shift.
The balance of the nine people required would be taken from (a)
volunteers, depending on suitability (b) seniority.
In return for this change to shift working the nine extra would
receive a once-off payment of #100 nett. In future, shift
working, if required would be a condition of employment for all
new employees.
4. These proposals were initially rejected by the Union but after
further consideration the Union was prepared to accept the
Company's terms provided the compensatory payment was greatly
enhanced to #750 per employee. This was rejected by the Company
and the parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 5th
October, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Because of the Union's insistence that shift working be
voluntary the Company have had to incur substantial overtime
costs and considerable inconvenience. If the Company cannot
attract sufficient persons to the shift it is forced to pay
overtime rates as opposed to the 20% shift premium to those
making up the shortfall.
2. The Company need a shift arrangement that is regularised
and not subject to a punitive premium. The fact that the
employees concerned in making up the shortfall of a shift will
only do so for the overtime rates is not only opportunistic
but in breach of the spirit of the Company Union Agreement.
3. Shift working is a normal feature of employment in the
Company and a standard practice within the industry. The
Union's position has/is creating a competitive disadvantage
for the Company. Even the current cover arrangements are
restrictive.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Agreement of 1984 specifically guarantees that shift
working will not be imposed on the workers concerned. This is
an important condition of employment in the Company which
cannot be unilaterally altered. Recognising the difficulties
of the Company, the workers are prepared to consider a
variation in the established conditions of employment, on
acceptable terms.
2. The workers took up their present employment on the
understanding that they would only be required to work day
work. A change to shift working would lead to serious
domestic disruption for those concerned (which would be
compounded by the fact that they are all women).
3. The offer put forward by the Company is based on an amount
paid to another group of workers whose working arrangements
were altered in circumstances which are totally different to
those involved in this dispute.