Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92375 Case Number: LCR13763 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CADBURY IRELAND PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Week-end working agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having fully examined the written submissions and oral
evidence of the parties, the Court did not find compelling grounds
to alter the existing week-end agreement in any major way.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the agreement continue to
operate as heretofore but giving effect to the amendments proposed
by the independent report of 3/1/92.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92375 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13763
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND PLC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Week-end working agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1989 agreement was reached on the terms and conditions of
employment for week-end workers. The Company first introduced the
week-end shift in 1988. Twenty-two production workers were
employed and the week-end shift operated during the following
periods:
August to December, 1988
March to December, 1989
June to November, 1990
Under the agreement which provided for a review after 3 years, the
workers are employed on a temporary basis and work a 35.15 hour
week. Week-end workers are not considered for vacancies which
arise for 39 hour week working and cannot obtain permanency.
Separate seniority lists exist for permanent and temporary
workers. In July, 1991, the Company commenced recruiting workers
for temporary 39 hour week employment. A dispute arose when the
Company having exhausted the 39 hour temporary list did not
consider the week-end workers who were on lay-off at that time for
the 39 hour week temporary employment. The dispute was resolved
following the intervention of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions
(I.C.T.U.) and a Recommendation from a Rights Commissioner which
allowed week-end workers a once-off opportunity, to opt for 39
hour week working. It was agreed at that time to bring forward
the review of the week-end working agreement. In the period
October/December, 1991 a review of the agreement took place under
the chairmanship of an independent third party. The independent
chairman issued his findings which were rejected by the Union.
The Union submitted a claim for the hours of work on the week-end
shift to be 39 and that after 2 years' continuous service the
workers concerned would be made permanent. The Company rejected
the claim and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 27th April,
1992 and as no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred
to the Labour Court on 26th June, 1992. The Court hearing took
place on 26th August, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The separate seniority grouping for week-end workers has
not been successful. This is demonstrated by the fact that on
two occasions it was necessary to allow week-end workers a
once-off option to move to 39 hour week working.
2. The Company's insistance on a separate seniority grouping
for week-end workers will lead to further problems at times of
lay-off or recruitment.
3. Can an agreement which was by-passed on two occasions
remain creditable.
4. A successful week-end agreement can only be achieved if it
is part of the 39 hour working group.
5. The Unions' acceptance of 35.15 hours was based, in part,
on the Company's assurance that 39 hour working at weekends
would not be available to any group on site. Subsequently the
Company conceded 39 hours to craft workers.
6. Week-end workers should be treated the same as temporary
39 hour week workers in respect of qualifying for permanent
employment after 2 years continuous service. Week-end workers
have aspirations of permanent full-time employment.
7. The Company can continue to respond to short term business
demands and retain the flexibility required for week-end
production while conceding the Unions' claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Week-end working in any plant by its nature is a
short-term arrangement and therefore, it would be misleading
to talk about permanency.
2. The number of production hours required at week-ends can
only be determined, at any given time by the level of
additional demand and the nature of the plant in question. It
is not possible, therefore, to have a fixed number of hours
associated with this arrangement.
3. Based on experience gained in terms of maintenance
requirement, it was necessary to provide 39 hour maintenance
cover at week-ends. The Company is in a position to offer
full-time employment to craftsmen when recruiting for week-end
working as they can be used within the system when they are
not engaged on week-end working.
4. The reality of the situation is that the Company cannot
give a guarantee of 39 hour working at week-ends. This shift
must be cost effective and be tailored to suit the hours
requirement as the need arises. If the Company is forced to
provide more hours than is necessary the costs become
prohibitive. If this happens week-end working will not take
place and potential jobs (and tonnes) will be lost. The
follow-on from this is that by not being able to demonstrate
that the Company is flexible and reliable, the Company's
reputation will be damaged in the long term.
5. If it is the intention of the Unions that by seeking 39
hour working and/or permanency, week-end employees would be
integrated into the full-time seniority group, this would have
major implications for having week-end working at all, because
of the disruption it would cause in relation to (i) lay-offs,
(ii) recruitment and (iii) job applications. The disruptive
effects would be as follows:-
(i) Lay-offs
When week-end working ceases, week-end people would
expect to be able to displace more junior 39 hour people
(viz junior 39 hour people would be layed off).
Within the 39 hour group this would give rise to a whole
chain reaction in terms of advertisement of jobs and
movement of people within this group.
Equally, if the Company wished to lay-off people from
the established 39 hour group and they have more service
than week-end people, they would expect to displace
week-end people.
(ii) Recruitment
If the Company has a requirement to recruit 39 hour
people and a week-end shift is running at that time,
week-end people would expect to be able to transfer to
these 39 hour jobs. If this happened the Company would
have to recruit people into the week-end group. This
would cause disruption in both groups.
(iii) Job applications
When a 39 hour person has at least one year's current
continuous service they can apply for job vacancies.
Week-end people, if part of the same seniority group,
would be able to apply for such vacancies and in turn
set up a chain reaction of job advertising and filling
of subsequent vacancies. This would lead to disruption
in both groups.
6. The purpose of the week-end shift working is to give to the
Company the flexibility to respond quickly to short term
demands, often at relatively short notice without interferring
with the working arrangements around its core business.
Experience has shown that the 1989 agreement has operated
satisfactorily.
7. Week-end working has a major part to play in the Company's
overall strategy which, in recent years, has resulted in an
increase in the volume of finished goods from 22,000 tonnes to
34,000 tonnes. This in turn has generated an additional 150
permanent jobs and given significant periods of employment to
over 160 temporary employees.
8. In order to secure the necessary level of investment from
the main U.K. Board, the Company has had to and must continue
to demonstrate that it is a reliable and flexible supplier in
terms of responding to both short term and long term customer
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having fully examined the written submissions and oral
evidence of the parties, the Court did not find compelling grounds
to alter the existing week-end agreement in any major way.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the agreement continue to
operate as heretofore but giving effect to the amendments proposed
by the independent report of 3/1/92.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
______________________
15th September, 1992. Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.