Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95126 Case Number: LCR14726 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BATCHELORS LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Shift working arrangements for two electricians.
Recommendation:
The Court accepts that the Company has the right to determine
staffing levels and cover required in the plant.
The Court recommends that the parties enter into meaningful
discussions to explore all options for implementation of the
necessary changes.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95126 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14726
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BATCHELORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Shift working arrangements for two electricians.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following rationalisation in the Company's cannery department
in 1988, the requirement arose for 2 of the Company's 4
electricians to work the 11 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. shift one week
in every two (previously 1 in 3). The shift patterns of the
other 2 electricians (employed prior to 1988) is covered by a
red-circle arrangement. The Union claims that additional
staff should be employed to provide the cover sought. The
Company, however, believes that the workers are contractually
obliged to comply with the requirement for change. An
arrangement was put in place, which gave extended cover at
the end of the evening shift and at the beginning of the
morning shift. This lasted from late 1993 until February,
1994, when the Union informed the Company, following local
discussions, that the workers would adhere to the working
hours laid down in the Agreement relating to the Maintenance
Area. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences followed, at which
agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court, on the 15th of February, 1995, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of March,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. By instructing the electricians to operate a two-cycle
shift operation of earlies and nights, contrary to the
"Hours of Work" Clause in the "Conditions of
Employment", the Company did not comply with laid down
procedures.
2. The Union's claim is supported by the fact that the
Company increased the night-shift premium by 5%. Also,
agreement had been reached under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. for the provision of additional cover. This is
evidence of the Union's commitment to the Company.
3. Additional personnel are necessary if 24-hour cover is
required, as follows:-
2 electricians on early shift
2 electricians on late shift
1 electrician on night shift.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As only 1 line (formerly 3) is now producing the total
output of the Cannery department on any one day, it is
critical that the efficiency of the line is maximised.
2. As the number of production lines in the Cannery has
been reduced from 3 to 1, with the line running from
7 a.m. to 1 a.m., it is vital that 24-hour cover be
available on a 24-hour basis, to ensure:
(a) The cost-efficiency of the operation,
(b) Cover of the completion of production,
(c) The carrying out of pre-start checks,
(d) Cover of the start-up process, which begins at
5.00 a.m.,
(e) Cover in the beverage plant, which is running on a
24-hour basis,
(f) The elimination of the vulnerable areas in the
start-up and completion of production.
3. The 2 electricians are contractually obliged to work the
shift-pattern proposed by the Company, to maximise cost-
efficiency.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the Company has the right to determine
staffing levels and cover required in the plant.
The Court recommends that the parties enter into meaningful
discussions to explore all options for implementation of the
necessary changes.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th April, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.