Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95247 Case Number: LCR14764 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH SUGAR - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Six-day shift working during off-season capital work programme.
Recommendation:
No valid reason was presented to the Court to justify the
introduction of 6 day shift work. It was accepted that the shift
work was unnecessary but was a means of addressing the claimants'
perception that their contribution to change has not been
recognised financially by the Company, while others have
benefited.
The Court does not see the introduction of unnecessary shift
working as the appropriate means of addressing this issue and,
therefore, rejects the Union's claim.
However, given the strong views expressed by the claimants during
the hearing, the Court is of the view that it would be in the
interest of both parties to meet to explore further the basis for
the perceptions held by the claimants.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95247 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14764
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH SUGAR
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Six-day shift working during off-season capital work
programme.
BACKGROUND:
2.1 The Company has been entering into contracts with other
employers to carry out its capital works programmes (repairs,
maintenance and installation of plant and technology) in
recent years. The work involved is carried out during the
period when sugar beet is not being processed (i.e.
mid-January to early September). The use of contractors for
this work has resulted in industrial relations disputes in
the Company.
2.2 The dispute involves approximately 80 workers at the
Company's plant at Carlow. They aspire to share in the
financial benefits which accrue to the Company and management
from the new plant and improved technology which is being
introduced during the capital works programmes. They claim
that shift working over a six day week during capital works
programmes, would give them a more even spread of the
benefits than their overtime working, which includes Saturday
working, does.
2.3 When the time for the commencement of the 1995 programme
approached, the Union requested discussions with the Company
in order to avoid similar conflict to that which had resulted
previously. The Company rejected the claim, it was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on 13th March, 1995. Agreement was not
possible at the conference. The Company put its final
position to the Union at local level. The Union rejected the
offer. An agreement for the 1995 programme was reached based,
as on previous occasions, on overtime working but on the
condition that a satisfactory agreement on the future use of
contractors be reached, so as not to delay the commencement
of the programme. The matter was referred by the parties to
the Labour Court. The Court investigated the dispute on 26th
April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The changes brought about by the introduction of new
plant and inproved technology have facilitated the
reduction of the workforce by 10% in each of the last
three years. The workforce will reduce by a further 10%
as a result of the changes which will result from the
current capital works programme.
2. The changes have resulted in a considerable increase in
productivity and, therefore, increased profits.
3. The workers contribution, through their co-operation,
should be recognised.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union is proposing that general workers at Carlow
factory be put on shift working over a six day week when
contractors are on site carrying out the capital works
programmes. The Company do not require 6 day shift
working during the off-season. The cost would be
prohibitive and would have knock-on effects for our
Mallow operation. Shift work is only necessary on a
continuous basis during the processing of the beet
harvest.
2. It is essential that the capital works programme be
implemented each year, without hindrance, in order to
allow vital maintenance work to be carried out. The
claim cannot be conceded as it would amount to a 16.6%
increase on basic pay, would breach the terms of the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work and would also
increase overhead costs (P.R.S.I, Pension and Holiday
Pay).
RECOMMENDATION:
No valid reason was presented to the Court to justify the
introduction of 6 day shift work. It was accepted that the shift
work was unnecessary but was a means of addressing the claimants'
perception that their contribution to change has not been
recognised financially by the Company, while others have
benefited.
The Court does not see the introduction of unnecessary shift
working as the appropriate means of addressing this issue and,
therefore, rejects the Union's claim.
However, given the strong views expressed by the claimants during
the hearing, the Court is of the view that it would be in the
interest of both parties to meet to explore further the basis for
the perceptions held by the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.