Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95548 Case Number: LCR15015 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SPRING GROVE (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a 5 over 6 rostered working week.
Recommendation:
The Court recommends that the 5/6 day working be accepted, that
the operation be monitored and that loss of earnings be evaluated
six months after the implementation of the new rosters. Loss of
earnings to be calculated in relation to the earnings during the
year to 7th April, 1995.
Any loss to be compensated at a rate of two times the annual loss.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95548 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15015
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SPRING GROVE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a 5 over 6 rostered
working week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is an industrial laundry facility located in
Ballsbridge. It employs 150 workers. The dispute concerns
two maintenance workers. They were employed by Initial
Services in May and June 1992 respectively. This Company was
taken over by Spring Grove in December, 1992 and the two
workers transferred to the Company at that time. Since mid-
1993 the two workers and the Company have held numerous
discussions about the workers' claim for a Christmas bonus
plus average overtime for holidays and the Company's proposal
to implement a 5/6 working week Monday to Saturday in respect
of the two workers. In April, 1995 under the auspices of the
Labour Relations Commission the parties reached agreement as
follows:-
"1. In respect of claim for average overtime and
Christmas bonus the Company shall increase the rate
from £242.87 to £247.
2. In full and final settlement of retrospection of 1
above a lump sum of £251 shall be paid to each of
the two individuals concerned.
3. Date of implementation is 7 April, 1995.
4. In principle it is agreed that 5 over 6 roster
shall apply to the two individuals concerned. In
addition, it is agreed in principle that basic
salary for 5 over 6 roster shall be £260 per week.
5. It is also agreed, in principle, that no lump sum
claim shall arise in respect of the new roster.
The parties shall enter immediate local discussions
with a view to agreement over the next 2 weeks. If
agreement is not possible then the matter shall be
dealt with at the Labour Relations Commission
within a further two weeks."
Subsequently the parties entered local discussions relating
to the 5 over 6 roster but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 6th September,1995.
Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 26th September, 1995. A Court
hearing was held on the 24th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the present situation the workers concerned work most
Saturdays. The introduction of a 5 over 6 arrangement
will result in a loss of earnings. Management gave a
commitment to the workers that they would not be at a
financial loss, yet the Company is reluctant to underpin
this commitment in any agreement. Management maintains
that it is essential to reduce costs, while at the same
time maintaining that 5 over 6 arrangement will ensure
that Saturday is always covered on a guaranteed basis.
2. The Company's commitment to the workers that there would
be no loss of earning's was not matched when the workers
claimed that the first option for any maintenance work
should be offered to existing staff rather than
contractors.
3. A 5 over 6 arrangement will affect staffing cover as the
maintenance section is already short staffed. A
craftsman left the employment in 1994 and was not
replaced. The Company gave a guarantee that the change
will not affect earnings but has failed to provide
sufficient guarantees. In these circumstances the
workers are opposed to any change in their working
conditions unless the Company can guarantee that they
will not suffer a loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement concluded on the 7th April is clear. It
was agreed in principle that a 5/6 roster should apply
to the two workers and in addition a rate of pay
reflecting this roster was agreed. It was also agreed
that there would be no lump sum claim for compensation
in relation to the new roster.
2. The Company honoured their commitment to clauses 1-3 of
the agreement. Salaries were increased and lump sums
paid to the two workers. This has contributed to an
escalation of maintenance costs as the Union has not
co-operated with the implementation of clauses 4-5.
3. The Company cannot sustain the current level of
maintenance costs in the Ballsbridge plant. The current
arrangement implies that the majority of maintenance
work is done on Saturdays at premium rates. This
arrangement cannot continue as there is a lesser need
for maintenance cover during the week when the plant is
fully operational and therefore a 5/5 roster is not
suitable.
4. A very clear and concise agreement was concluded at
conciliation. The Company has fulfilled its obligation
under the agreement. The Union agreed in principle to
the implementation of a 5/6 working roster and also
agreed there would be no lump sum arising in respect of
a new roster. It is not acceptable that the Union
should now withdraw from this agreement particularly as
the Company has, in good faith, implemented its
commitment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the 5/6 day working be accepted, that
the operation be monitored and that loss of earnings be evaluated
six months after the implementation of the new rosters. Loss of
earnings to be calculated in relation to the earnings during the
year to 7th April, 1995.
Any loss to be compensated at a rate of two times the annual loss.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.