Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93157 Case Number: LCR14025 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a fixed-shift pattern of work.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, in the light of the submissions made by the parties
is concerned that the discussions on the question of the shift
arrangements have been made more difficult because of the two
distinct elements in the employer's proposals i.e. the proposal
for non-rotating shift cover and the proposal to reduce the
premium.
It is the opinion of the Court that no very convincing argument
was put forward to support the change to fixed non-rotating shifts
in the case of this group of employees. The Court in these
circumstances, therefore, recommends that the Company drop this
proposal and proceed directly with negotiations concentrating
specifically on amending the excessive shift premium.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93157 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14025
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED
and
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a fixed-shift pattern
of work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Limerick and has been involved in
the manufacture of a range of small domestic appliances since
1964. At present the Company employs 635 workers. Up to 1991,
the Limerick plant was part of the Krups Group. In January, 1991,
the Krups Group was taken over by Moulinex. The Moulinex Group
has over twenty factories world-wide, producing a broad range of
domestic applicances. The Limerick plant was saved from closure
by the takeover of the Krups Group.
In order to secure the viability of the plant, the Company intends
to expand production by introducing new fixed-shift arrangements,
as follows:
Day-shift 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (flat rate)
Evening-shift 4 p.m. to 12 midnight (20% premium)
Night-shift 12 midnight to 8 a.m. (30% premium).
(Fixed-shifts were introduced in early 1992 on an
interim basis).
The Company is willing to allow shift-rotation at fixed-shift
rates. The Union is opposed to the introduction of the
fixed-shifts as proposed by the Company. It contends that the
proposals are in breach of the conditions of employment of the 49
craft workers concerned. Following unsuccessful meetings between
the Union and the Company, the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the
15th of January, 1993, at which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of March,
1993, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute, in Limerick, on
the 9th of March, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Moulinex Group is currently in a loss-making situation
worldwide. Job-numbers have been reduced in various plants
and three plants have closed. Shift-working is becoming more
necessary and since shift costs in the Limerick plant are out
of line with those of the rest of the Group, they must be
curtailed for the long-term benefit of all employees.
2. Labour costs in the Limerick plant are not competitive.
They are to 4% higher than labour costs in comparable plants
in France. The cost of labour per motor is about 35% higher
than the cost in France. The gap in labour costs will
increase as the requirement for shift-work increases.
3. Many of the craft workers are presently engaged in jobs
where less-skilled and cheaper employees would suffice.
4. The salaries of craft workers in the Company are at the
top of the range for craft workers in Ireland.
5. Fixed-shifts are more appropriate to the Company's future
operations.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's proposals are in breach of the conditions of
employment of the craft workers.
2. The multi-skilling agreement reached with the Company in
1987 was based on trust, and the understanding that existing
conditions of employment would be honoured. It would be a
retrograde step if the trust and honour built up was
diminished in any way.
3. It is reasonable for craft workers in the plant to expect
that the normal forms of shift-working and the normal premia
applying in industry generally, should apply to them.
4. Fixed shifts will cause considerable disruption to
workers' family lives.
5. The Union's proposals for rotating shifts would only apply
to a maximum of 19 craft workers within the plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, in the light of the submissions made by the parties
is concerned that the discussions on the question of the shift
arrangements have been made more difficult because of the two
distinct elements in the employer's proposals i.e. the proposal
for non-rotating shift cover and the proposal to reduce the
premium.
It is the opinion of the Court that no very convincing argument
was put forward to support the change to fixed non-rotating shifts
in the case of this group of employees. The Court in these
circumstances, therefore, recommends that the Company drop this
proposal and proceed directly with negotiations concentrating
specifically on amending the excessive shift premium.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
30th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.