Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92601 Case Number: LCR13946 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES (ARKLOW) - and - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of six electricians, for the payment of a permanent shift rate.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing the Court does not consider that the claim by the workers
concerned that the whole group should be classified as shift
workers is warranted. In the circumstances therefore, the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92601 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13946
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES (ARKLOW)
and
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of six electricians, for the
payment of a permanent shift rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs two categories of workers, shift workers
and day workers. Both categories carry different conditions of
employment.
3. Electricians are employed as day workers and are liable for
transfer to shift working for periods in order to provide silent
hour cover. When a day worker transfers to shift working he
receives shift payments and conditions for the duration of shift
working.
4. Initially there were 22 electricians employed by the Company
who worked shift on a rota basis. Because of a reduction in
manning levels from 22 to 6 the requirement for the remaining
electricians to work shift increased. The Union lodged a claim on
behalf of the electricians for appointment as permanent shift
workers on the basis that their work patterns were such that they
should be defined as shift workers. The Company rejected the
claim.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
21st August, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on 13th
September, 1991. The Industrial Relations Officer proposed that
the electricians be designated temporary shift workers for a
period of two years following which both parties would review the
working arrangements with a view to agreeing a permanent
arrangement for the electricians. These proposals were acceptable
to the Union but were rejected by the Company.
6. Further conciliation conferences were held on 3rd March, 1992
and 1st September, 1992 following which the Company offered to
assign four electricians as permanent shift workers and the two
remaining electricians as permanent day workers with payment of
compensation. The Union rejected the Company's offer and sought
the appointment of five electricians to permanent shift working
with one electrician remaining on day work as he indicated that he
wished to be taken off shift work. As no agreement was reached,
the Commission with the consent of the parties, referred the
dispute to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 28th
September, 1992. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th
January, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Because of the reduction in manning levels the
electricians are now required to spend more time working on
shift.
2. The workers spend a similar amount of time on shift work
as other groups of permanent shift workers (details supplied
to the Court).
3. The amount of time workers spend on shift work exceeds the
period defined as part-time shift working under the
Company/Union agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Craft workers are employed as day workers with requirement
to work shift.
2. The present arrangements afford all the electricians to
greatly enhance their earnings.
3. Concession of the Union's claim would be wasteful,
uneconomic and would undermine the Company's pay structure
(details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing the Court does not consider that the claim by the workers
concerned that the whole group should be classified as shift
workers is warranted. In the circumstances therefore, the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
8th February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.