Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92770 Case Number: LCR13942 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SHERWOOD MEDICAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the working of a fixed evening shift.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the written and verbal arguments
of the parties, believes that the craftsmen's terms of employment,
given to them at interview, are valid, having been advised to each
on an individual basis prior to recruitment into the Company, and
subsequently the Union.
The Court further holds that the shift patterns now operating
arose out of necessity and do exist through custom and practice.
The Court recommends that the craftsmen be asked to fill the
remaining shift on a voluntary basis. If this does not resolve
the problem of manning, the vacancy will be filled on a last-in
basis.
The Court further recommends that the Union raise the issue of
non-recognition of this shift in the Company/Union agreement, and
its attendant premium, at the expiry of the P.E.S.P.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92770 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13942
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SHERWOOD MEDICAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the working of a fixed evening shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Tullamore since 1982, and manufactures
a range of medical equipment. It is a division of the American
Home Products Corporation and employs approximately 340 workers.
In 1982, the Company and the Union signed a comprehensive
agreement which provided for two-cycle rotating shift-working, and
a shift premium of one sixth of basic pay. Since then, the
Company has operated its production on the basis of regular days
and fixed evening shifts (4 p.m. to 12 a.m.) with payment of the
shift premium to those on the evening shift only.
In May, 1992, due to increased demand for the Company's
produce, and in line with the Company's plan for expansion, one
tool-maker was required to work a permanent evening-shift.
The Company claimed that there was a practice of permanent
evening-shift working both within the plant as a whole, and within
the maintenance section. The Company also claimed that the worker
concerned (the most junior in the section as there was no
volunteer available) was employed on the express condition that he
was liable to work evenings.
The Union's position is that the Company/Union Agreement provides
for rotating shifts, and that although certain workers have agreed
to work permanent evenings (an arrangement that suits their
domestic circumstances) the Company cannot force a worker into
the arrangement.
The worker was suspended, having refused to comply with the
Company's request to work the evening-shift. A stoppage was
averted when the parties agreed at conciliation to an interim
arrangement pending further conciliation on the issue.
A conciliation conference was held at the Labour Relations
Commission on the 1st of September, 1992, at which agreement was
not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the
14th of December, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Labour Court investigated the
dispute on the 29th of January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has insisted on changing the Company/Union
Agreement on shift-work without recourse to due procedure.
The cost to the Company of compliance with the Agreement would
have been in the order of #36.00 per week. The cost of
non-compliance could be far greater than that.
2. The Company wrongly contends that there is a precedent for
a permanent evening-shift. The facts of the matter are that
certain workers volunteered for permanent evenings due to
personal circumstances.
3. If the Company wishes to introduce a permanent
evening-shift, it should negotiate with the Union as opposed
to unilaterally enforcing change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claims ignore the operational realities of the
business. The Company has not operated a two-shift rotational
system in all its periods of shift-work since 1985. The Union
now wish to apply a strict interpretation of the Agreement and
to ignore and disregard seven years of custom and practice.
2. Any adjustment to the current shift system as claimed by
the Union for the tool-room staff would have considerable
knock-on effects on industrial relations within the Company.
Furthermore it would have significant implications on the
cost-effectiveness of the Company and would constitute a
cost-increasing claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the written and verbal arguments
of the parties, believes that the craftsmen's terms of employment,
given to them at interview, are valid, having been advised to each
on an individual basis prior to recruitment into the Company, and
subsequently the Union.
The Court further holds that the shift patterns now operating
arose out of necessity and do exist through custom and practice.
The Court recommends that the craftsmen be asked to fill the
remaining shift on a voluntary basis. If this does not resolve
the problem of manning, the vacancy will be filled on a last-in
basis.
The Court further recommends that the Union raise the issue of
non-recognition of this shift in the Company/Union agreement, and
its attendant premium, at the expiry of the P.E.S.P.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
5th February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.