Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9333 Case Number: LCR13981 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the loss of shift-work.
Recommendation:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the opinion that no valid claim exists to continue shift-work
in respect of the two operatives in question, or to continue the
payment of shift premium.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company's offer of
compensation for loss of shift premium be accepted by the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9333 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13981
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the loss of shift-work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company began operations at Scarriff, Co. Clare in 1984,
having taken over the Chipboard Factory which had been in
operation in Scarriff from 1959 to 1983. The Company currently
employs 170 workers, producing particle-board, primarily for the
Irish and U.K. markets.
The dispute concerns two Engineering store-workers who are
required by the Company to operate a day-shift, in place of the
two-shift system that has obtained to-date. The store-workers are
responsible for the handling, recording, coding and distribution
of all engineering parts. Following a productivity agreement
between the Company and the mechanical craftsmens' Union, some
fitters have moved from evening-shift to day-work.
The Company's position is that since the primary function of the
stores is to service the needs of the maintenance workshop, there
is an increased requirement for stores' service between 8 a.m. and
4.30 p.m., with no requirement for stores' service on the
evening-shift. By way of compensation the Company proposes that
the workers will retain their relevant shift-premium for six weeks
from the date on which they return to day-work.
The Union contends that there is a sufficient workload to justify
the retention of the existing shift arrangement.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 11th of November, 1992,
following which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of January, 1993 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute, in Limerick, on the
10th of February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workload of the two workers justifies the retention of
the existing shift arrangement. There are a considerable
number of "invisible" duties performed by the stores workers
after the end of the day-shift.
2. The Company's intention is to remove the two workers from
the evening-shift, with a view to having Maintenance and
Management Supervisory Staff handle any store requirements
outside the day-shift. It is unacceptable that work which is
the responsibility of the stores staff should be assigned to
other grades.
3. The Company's actions are a deliberate attempt to
undermine the Union's members' continued involvement in the
Engineering stores area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no longer any requirement for the operation of a
two-shift cycle in the stores. The reversion to day-work has
been in response to changes in the Company's needs.
2. The Company has the sole and exclusive right to manage its
business. This includes the basic right to establish or
change shift-work arrangement.
3. In accordance with custom and practice within the Company,
and considering the serious financial circumstances that
prevail at present, the workers have been offered generous
compensation for the loss of the shift-work.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the opinion that no valid claim exists to continue shift-work
in respect of the two operatives in question, or to continue the
payment of shift premium.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company's offer of
compensation for loss of shift premium be accepted by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
----------------
5th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.