Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95427 Case Number: LCR14882 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: G.E. SUPERABRASIVES (IRELAND) (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Call-in for absence cover.
Recommendation:
In addition to the very detailed submissions made by both parties,
Union members were able to give details of how they assumed the
Agreement (which the Union freely acknowledged had been entered
into) would work.
It was clear to the Court that the only difference between the
parties was whether members were required to provide any necessary
cover or whether they would supply such cover on a voluntary
basis.
Having examined the documentation provided and taking into account
the detailed discussions which took place during the period when
the overall Agreement was under negotiation, the Court is
satisfied that the Agreement entered into provides that cover must
be provided from reserve hours by each worker as required.
The Court also noted management's assurances that each shift can
arrange its own roster without interference. Each shift can also
agree swapping arrangements as they wish, provided such
arrangements do not interfere with the Company's requirement to
have cover provided.
The Court accordingly recommends that the necessary cover required
by management from reserve hours be supplied as required.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95427 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14882
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
G.E. SUPERABRASIVES (IRELAND)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Call-in for absence cover.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of super abrasive
products, used in cutting, grinding and the drilling
industry. It employs approximately 300 workers.
In late 1994, agreement was reached between the parties for
the implementation of the `Turning Point Plan'. The plan
provided for the introduction of `annual hours working'.
Under the annual hours working system a specific number of
hours are rostered and worked annually. In addition 200
reserve hours are banked over and above the rostered hours.
The dispute before the Court concerns the method in which
banked hours are used to provide absence cover. The Company
claims that the agreement entitles it to use the banked hours
to provide cover for absence. The Union's position is that
it will agree to cover for absence from banked hours but
rejects a call-in system to cover for unexpected absence.
Local level discussions took place at which proposals put
forward by the Company (details supplied to the Court) to
resolve the issue were rejected by the workers and the matter
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference took place on 13th July, 1995. As no
agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 28th July, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 9th August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company set out to implement a radical
re-structuring programme which impacts significantly on
its workforce. It did so without any meaningful
negotiations with the Union and without any involvement
of the Union in the design or implementation of the
plan.
2. The concept of reserve hours was presented in the
Company's promotional material as of little significance
in practice. The information provided indicated that
reserve hours would be used at the discretion of the
workers. This information was misleading.
3. The Union accepts that reserve hours are available to
the Company to cover absenteeism and would agree to such
cover provided the workers are notified before they
finish their own shift. Otherwise cover would be
provided on a voluntary basis.
4. The Company's claim that the agreement allows for
stand-by cannot be justified. The Company is not able
to identify any provision in the Agreement which
supports its claim.
5. The system operated smoothly on a voluntary basis for a
period after its introduction. The Company's decision
to take disciplinary procedures against a worker who was
not available for cover and who rejected the concept of
stand-by undermined the goodwill of the workforce.
6. The goodwill of the workforce must be restored if the
"plan" is to operate successfully in the future. This
can be achieved by utilising reserve hours in a manner
envisaged by the Union. The Union is satisfied that
this will provide a sufficient level of cover to the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The use of reserve hours is a vital part of the annual
hours system and is central to providing the flexibility
required by the Company to keep the plant fully
operational. The principles for the operation of cover,
in cases of unexpected absence, are clearly outlined in
both documents representing the Company's proposals for
the Turning Point Plan, which were accepted by the Union
Group in December, 1994.
2. The details of how this system would work were the
subject of several meetings and negotiations in late
1994. Arising from these discussions there can be no
doubt that S.I.P.T.U. was fully aware how the system
would operate. Craft Unions within the Company are
operating cover as agreed and outlined during the
negotiations of the `Turning Point Plan'.
3. Access to reserve hours, at short notice, to cover for
absenteeism is central to the flexibility required to
keep the plant fully operational under the annual hours
agreement. This requirement was at the heart of the
Turning Point Plan and covered by the spirit and intent
of the agreement. It represents a total investment by
the Company of over one million pounds for reserve hours
coverage. This equates to an average payment of
approximately #4,000 per employee.
4. The Company has committed itself to minimise the actual
number of reserve hours used, by agreeing a decay
mechanism on a quarterly basis. The Company has clearly
stated "its intention to work with teams in a way which
will not over use reserve hours".
5. The Company has attempted to deal with any realistic
concerns in a responsive and constructive manner. It
was this approach which led to the Company's final
position on plant cover, as proposed on the 23rd June,
1995. The Union's rejection of the Company's position
is a cause for fundamental concern to the Company.
6. If the Company is not successful in gaining the
flexibility sought and accepted under the agreement,
then given the current difficulties in the marketplace
the Company will not have a future.
RECOMMENDATION:
In addition to the very detailed submissions made by both parties,
Union members were able to give details of how they assumed the
Agreement (which the Union freely acknowledged had been entered
into) would work.
It was clear to the Court that the only difference between the
parties was whether members were required to provide any necessary
cover or whether they would supply such cover on a voluntary
basis.
Having examined the documentation provided and taking into account
the detailed discussions which took place during the period when
the overall Agreement was under negotiation, the Court is
satisfied that the Agreement entered into provides that cover must
be provided from reserve hours by each worker as required.
The Court also noted management's assurances that each shift can
arrange its own roster without interference. Each shift can also
agree swapping arrangements as they wish, provided such
arrangements do not interfere with the Company's requirement to
have cover provided.
The Court accordingly recommends that the necessary cover required
by management from reserve hours be supplied as required.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th August, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.