Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95362 Case Number: LCR14849 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;BAKERS & FOOD WORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION |
Proposal to eliminate shift work.
Recommendation:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions
made by the parties.
The Company statement in relation to the difficult trading
position in some sections of its business was accepted by the
Unions as factual.
While accepting the reality of the situation, and the more serious
consequences of jobs loss if a resolution of the current impasse
is not found, long standing tradition and individual circumstances
are a major factor in this case.
Given this situation, the Court is of the view that the proposal
made by the Industrial Relations Officer is the most reasonable
way to resolve the problem.
However, taking into account all the issues in the case, the Court
believes that the Company Redundancy Package should be made
available to ten rather than five people.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company and the Employees
accept the proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer as
outlined in his letter of 1/6/95 with the modification of an
increase from five to ten Company Redundancy Packages.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95362 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14849
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
BAKERS & FOOD WORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Proposal to eliminate shift work
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Company's proposals to change the
packing operations, on the No. 2 and No. 4 plants, from the
present shift operation to day and part-time work. There are
twenty six workers involved, fourteen on No. 2 plant and
twelve on No. 4 plant.
The No. 2 plant produces various "cream" biscuits. The
market for this product has been in decline for some time.
No. 4 plant produces mainly "digestives".
Both plants were on two-shift work (7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
and 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.) with a shift differential of
18.75%. Approximately one and a half years ago, No. 2 plant
changed to one shift (7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.) but the workers
concerned retained the shift differential. In May, 1995, the
Company introduced night working (involving thirty workers)
to No. 4 plant. The night workers, who are employed on a
part-time basis from May to November, work a 10.00 p.m. to
8.00 a.m. shift. Consequently, the Company sought to
re-arrange the shift times of the twelve workers on No. 4
plant, from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. and from 4.30 p.m. to
10.00 p.m. The Company maintains that this is to eliminate
unproductive time between the shifts. The thirty part-time
workers would also be involved in work on No. 3 and No. 6
plants.
In 1979/80 the Company decided to make a general change from
shift work to day and part-time work. The decision led to a
1981 agreement between Company and Unions. The Unions claim
that the agreement guaranteed shift work for pre 1981
workers. Post 1981 workers would have day and part-time
work, but could not be guaranteed shift work.
The Company proposes to eliminate the shift differential on
No. 2 plant. For No. 4 plant, it proposes that workers
should be on day work (8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) with some
workers on part-time work (4.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.). The
Company also proposes to create shift work for a pool of
fourteen workers (somewhere in the plant) in order to
facilitate the changed working arrangements. The Unions have
proposed an alternative shift for No. 4 plant of early shift
7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m., late shift 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
and night shift of 11.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m
The dispute was the subject of a number of meetings at local
level and two conciliation conferences with the Labour
Relations Commission on 24th May and 29th May, 1995. On 1st
June, 1995, the Industrial Relations Officer (I.R.O.) made
the following proposals for settlement:
1. That the parties agree that personnel who came on shift in
1988 or later should transfer to days and the following
compensation should be paid:
a. A sum equivalent to 36 weeks of shift premium
and
b. Retention of premium for 2.5 weeks per year of service
on shift.
2. That the Company Redundancy Package be made available to up
to five (5) of the personnel who came on shift prior to 1988
and that as a special measure up to fourteen shift jobs be
created in the pool for personnel not opting for Redundancy.
This number of shift jobs will diminish in the future as the
number in this group declines.
The proposals were rejected by a substantial majority.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 13th June,
1995, under Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 13th July, 1995, (the
earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While there is a huge increase in production
requirements in plant No. 4, workers are being asked to
go off shift work and on to day work/part-time work. A
number of the workers involved have worked for many
years in the No. 4 plant on shift work and do not wish
to change.
2. If the workers must change to day work there will be a
long term loss of shift pay of approximately #40 per
week.
3. Should the Company's proposal be introduced (starting at
8.00 a.m.) the workers' personal circumstances would be
affected. Accepting the Unions' proposal on shift time
(starting at 7.00 a.m.) would mean no displacement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's proposals must be implemented if it is to
remain competitive. At present, the Company is
sustaining a loss on all "digestives" that are produced.
2. The Company cannot afford to continue paying the shift
differential to the workers in No. 2 plant who are, in
effect, doing day work.
3. The present system, where workers in No. 4 plant finish
the second shift at 11.00 p.m. and night workers start
at 10.00 p.m. is unproductive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions
made by the parties.
The Company statement in relation to the difficult trading
position in some sections of its business was accepted by the
Unions as factual.
While accepting the reality of the situation, and the more serious
consequences of jobs loss if a resolution of the current impasse
is not found, long standing tradition and individual circumstances
are a major factor in this case.
Given this situation, the Court is of the view that the proposal
made by the Industrial Relations Officer is the most reasonable
way to resolve the problem.
However, taking into account all the issues in the case, the Court
believes that the Company Redundancy Package should be made
available to ten rather than five people.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company and the Employees
accept the proposals of the Industrial Relations Officer as
outlined in his letter of 1/6/95 with the modification of an
increase from five to ten Company Redundancy Packages.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st. August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O' Neill, Court Secretary.