Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93526 Case Number: LCR14299 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH SUGAR COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for payment of compensation for changing from a 6 day to a 5 day shift.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds
to justify payment of compensation for the change from 6 day to 5
day shift which came about because of a fall-off in business. The
Court has found that the compensation proposed by the Company in
respect of the change from 5 day shift to 5 day flat is in line
with previous Labour Court Recommendations and accordingly the
Court recommends its acceptance by the Union.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93526 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14299
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH SUGAR COMPANY
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for payment of compensation for changing from a 6 day to
a 5 day shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The case relates to the period of the off season (39
weeks of the year) during which, up to 1991, three workers
worked 13 weeks each on 6 day shift on duties involving boiler
attendance. In 1991, the Company reduced the staff
requirement from 6 day shift to 5 day shift because of the
cessation of production of pulp products arising from a
fall-off in demand for these products. No compensation was
paid at this time.
2. In February, 1992, the Company installed a new automatic
boilder which meant that there was no longer a need for shift
work and the workers reverted to day work. The Company and
Union agreed a formula for payment of compensation in respect
of the reduction from 5 day shift to flat 5 day working i.e.
average weekly loss over 13 weeks x 13 x 2.5. The Union
submitted a further claim for similar compensation for going
from 6 day shift to 5 day shift in 1990. This was rejected by
the Company and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on
1st September, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and the
issue was referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the
Labour Court on 10th September, 1993. The Court investigated
the matter on 29th November, 1993 in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have lost guaranteed overtime which they
enjoyed for many years.
2. The Company recognises their liability to pay
compensation but the compensation is inadequate in
respect of the method of calculation and the criteria
used.
3. The loss of regular overtime will have an impact on
holiday entitlements, possible social welfare
entitlements and future pension entitlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is prepared to pay compensation of 2.5 times
the loss.
2. The Company was forced to cease selling animal feeds
from Mallow in 1990 becuase of the loss of market share
and agreement was reached with the Union at that time to
reduce the 6 day shift to 5 day shift.
3. There was no claim or agreement to pay compensation in
1990.
4. The basis for agreeing to pay compensation in 1992 was
because the loss suffered was a direct result of the
action of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find grounds
to justify payment of compensation for the change from 6 day to 5
day shift which came about because of a fall-off in business. The
Court has found that the compensation proposed by the Company in
respect of the change from 5 day shift to 5 day flat is in line
with previous Labour Court Recommendations and accordingly the
Court recommends its acceptance by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th December, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P. O'C/U.S. ---------------
Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerned this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.