Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95529 Case Number: LCR14989 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NUTEC LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Introduction of shift work and related matters.
Recommendation:
The Court was presented with conflicting estimates of the
potential loss of earnings figures for employees involved in the
proposed shift arrangements.
The Company stated that the effect on take-home pay, given the
limited use of the shift arrangements, will be minimal.
Taking this into account, and the information supplied by both
parties during the hearing, the Court makes the following
recommendations:-
(1) The employees to accept the proposed shift working
arrangements.
(2) The premium payments for such shifts to be 20%.
(3) A one-off lump sum payment of £500 to be paid to the affected
employees in return for acceptance of the shift proposals and
the discontinuance of the cashing-in time.
(4) Loss of earnings, if any, to be calculated at end of year 1
of operation of shifts and compensation for loss to be
one-off payment of equivalent of 2 years' loss.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95529 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14989
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NUTEC LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
Introduction of shift work and related matters.
BACKGROUND:
The Company is involved in the supply of pre-mixes to animal
feed manufacturers. There are 10 workers involved in the
dispute at the Tallaght plant. The Company's normal working
day is 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
In 1994, the Company decided to extend its working day. This
involved two groups of workers as follows:-
Group A: 6.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. (6.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m.
at overtime rates)
Group B: 8.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. (5.00 p.m. - 7.00 p.m.
at overtime rates)
In May, 1995, the Company decided that, due to increased
customer demand, it would be necessary to again increase
production. At a meeting on 10th July, 1995, the Company put
the following proposals regarding shift work:
1. A shift system consisting of two shifts rotating on a weekly
basis. The hours of work will be
6.00 a.m. to 2.15 p.m.
2.00 p.m. to 10.15 p.m.
(Monday to Friday inclusive).
2. Two paid tea breaks of fifteen minutes as well as
fifteen minutes paid shower time at each shift.
3. During shift hours the rate of pay will be basic rate
plus 18%.
4. The thirty minute cashing-in time to be terminated and a
credit transfer payment system be implemented.
5. The shift system will be worked as and when the Company
deems necessary.
6. The Company will ensure that the shift system would be
worked for a minimum of two weeks at a time to allow
full rotation amongst employees.
The Union was prepared to co-operate with shift work
proposals but wanted a number of conditions fulfilled first.
The main issue is that the Union claimed that the workers
would lose money on shift work, due to the loss of overtime.
The Union was looking for (a), a shift allowance of 25% and
(b) any shortfall as a result of working shift to be paid to
the workers.
There were a number of other issues that the Union wished to
address - the heating and ventilation system, an annual
health check for all employees and staggered breaks. During
shift work, a breakfast should be made available and dinner
or a dinner allowance should be provided for anyone working
after 5.00 p.m. The Union also wants the operation of split
days to take place from October - March. The Company wants
it to take place from October - April.
The dispute was discussed at local level and, failing
agreement, was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place on 29th August, 1995,
but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 14th September, 1995, in accordance with
Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court hearing took place on 27th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Over the last 12 years the workers involved have had the
benefit of regular overtime. At present, there is an average
yield of £287 in overtime per week for each worker. On an
average basic of £248 on a 39-hour week, the proposed shift
premium will yield only £45 per week. Workers cannot be
expected to take such a loss of earnings.
2. The heating and ventilation system should be brought to a
satisfactory condition. Because of the nature of the
product, it is important that all employees have an annual
health check. Workers should be given notice of the
staggered breaks before 9.00 a.m. The 30 minute breaks
should be paid as was previously the case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company normally has only a short time to respond to
customer demands. Despite the extended working day
introduced in 1994, some customers did not receive products
as quickly as required. Consequently, the Company has to
extend its working day to a 2-shift cycle, giving a 16 hour
day. Workers will only be required to work shift when it is
necessary to meet customer demands. If shift work is not
introduced at the Tallaght plant, the Company will be
required to produce its product elsewhere, putting the
long-term future of the Tallaght plant in question.
2. It is not possible to predict a possible loss of overtime
earnings for the workers. The following is the average
weekly figures for overtime hours and earnings over the last
three years as follows:_
Year (April to April) Average Hours Average Earnings
per week per per week per
employee employee
1992 - 1993 15 £152
1993 - 1994 15 £171
1994 - 1995 14 £150
The Company is prepared to assess any loss after the busy period
is over. In discussions with the Union in 1994, it was agreed
that there would be a return to the staggering of all breaks when
production requirements necessitate it. The Company cannot afford
to pay for the staggered breaks but is prepared to be flexible
about when workers take them. Eliminating the 30 minute
cashing-in time would increase the Company's production capacity.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was presented with conflicting estimates of the
potential loss of earnings figures for employees involved in the
proposed shift arrangements.
The Company stated that the effect on take-home pay, given the
limited use of the shift arrangements, will be minimal.
Taking this into account, and the information supplied by both
parties during the hearing, the Court makes the following
recommendations:-
(1) The employees to accept the proposed shift working
arrangements.
(2) The premium payments for such shifts to be 20%.
(3) A one-off lump sum payment of £500 to be paid to the affected
employees in return for acceptance of the shift proposals and
the discontinuance of the cashing-in time.
(4) Loss of earnings, if any, to be calculated at end of year 1
of operation of shifts and compensation for loss to be
one-off payment of equivalent of 2 years' loss.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st December, 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.