Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9585 Case Number: LCR14718 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: STENA SEALINK LINE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Compensation for change of rosters.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that, taking into account the exigences of the business,
concession of the claims as made would not be in line with the
requirements of the industry.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the
claims.
The Court is, however, concerned that the Company did implement a
change affecting "rest days" without negotiation and, accordingly,
recommends that this item be subject of negotiations between the
parties. These negotiations should also address any future
changes in rosters which may be required.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9585 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14718
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
STENA SEALINK LINE
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for change of rosters.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by 36 (24 permanent full-time
and 12 permanent part-time) Sealink General Operative staff
as a result of changes in rosters following the introduction
by the Company of the first fast craft ferry on the Dun
Laoghaire/Holyhead route on 16th July, 1993.
There are three teams of 8 full-time and 4 part-time workers.
Each team worked a roster of four days on the early shift
followed by two days off followed by four days on late shift
and two days off. Each full-time worker worked an average of
39 hours per week. The following shift times applied:-
Full-time Staff Part-time Staff
Early Shift 05.15 - 13.35 07.00 - 11.00
Late Shift 15.10 - 23.30 19.30 - 23.30
Following the introduction of the fast craft ferry on 16th
July, 1993 the following shift times applied:-
Full-time Staff Part-time Staff
Early Shift 05.15 - 14.35 07.15 - 11.15
Late Shift 17.40 - 01.00 18.30 - 22.30
The Union is claiming payment of one hour's overtime for
full-time staff on the early shift. In addition it is
claiming that workers on the late shift who work until 01.00
hours into the first of their rest days be paid one hour at
the rest day rate, i.e. four hours the appropriate rate.
Both claims to be retrospective to the introduction of the
new roster in July, 1993. The Union also submitted that the
Company should provide transport for workers who worked
through to 01.00 hours.
The Company agreed to provide transport for those on the late
shift but rejected the claim for overtime payment. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference took place on 1st July, 1994. No
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 23rd January, 1995 (the earliest date suitable
to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned had already agreed to extensive
changes in work practices in April, 1993. The Company
introduced the new roster with very little consultation
and without agreement.
2. The Agreement with the Company regarding rest day
states:-
"The following rest day rates will apply:
Monday/Saturday - time plus 3/4. Sunday - double
time. Minimum of four hours at appropriate rate
guaranteed."
A worker finishing at 01.00 hours has already worked one
hour into his rest day and should be paid as per the
Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is involved in a very competitive business.
All changes which were made by the Company, including
the introduction of the fast craft ferry in July, 1993,
were necessary for the survival of the Company.
2. The May, 1993, Agreement with the Union allowed for
flexibility to meet customer and market requirements as
they would arise. This included the change of roster in
July, 1993. The new roster effectively increased the
early shift by one hour and reduced the late shift by
one hour for full-time workers. These workers still
work an average 39 hours per week.
3. The cost of conceding the Unions' claims would be
considerable. The Company is at present investing over
#100 million in a new fast craft. Conceding the claim
could lead to similar claims from other groups in the
Company. The claim is prohibited by the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that, taking into account the exigences of the business,
concession of the claims as made would not be in line with the
requirements of the industry.
The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of the
claims.
The Court is, however, concerned that the Company did implement a
change affecting "rest days" without negotiation and, accordingly,
recommends that this item be subject of negotiations between the
parties. These negotiations should also address any future
changes in rosters which may be required.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.