Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95441 Case Number: LCR14964 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THERMAL HEAT EXCHANGERS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning changes in shift structure, interpretation of house agreement, grading structure.
Recommendation:
The Court in considering all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions notes that the Company is
prepared to guarantee 40 rotating shift positions on the
introduction of a fixed shift system.
The Court also notes that it is proposed to fill the shift from
permanent employees who wish to volunteer for the shift, future
employees and temporaries.
Accordingly it is the view of the Court that the introduction of
the fixed shift will not adversely affect the jobs of the
permanent employees.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the fixed shift
system be accepted and introduced.
The Court notes the Company is prepared to be flexible regarding
the hours of the shifts subject to certain conditions and
recommends the parties agree the hours to be operated taking
account of the needs of the employees together with the
requirement to maximise efficiency and control overhead costs.
The Court considered the reservations expressed regarding the loss
of overtime earnings and recommends the operation of the system be
monitored and following a period of six months the parties discuss
the impact of the shift system including any losses of earnings
which may have occurred.
The Company is carrying out cross training of employees and it is
the view of the Court that this exercise may succeed in resolving
the disputes in relation to grading and the employment of
temporaries in Grade 5 positions.
The Court recommends that the employees work the staggered breaks
as requested by the Company, which request the Court finds is in
accordance with the provisions of the Company/Union Agreement on
flexibility.
When considering the views expressed by the parties the Court was
concerned at the lack of goodwill between them which can only add
to the difficulties in seeking to resolve issues in dispute.
The Court is aware that the parties are currently being assisted
by the Labour Relations Commission's Advisory Service.
The Court recommends the parties co-operate fully with this
service with a view to developing good relations and improving the
industrial relations climate generally.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95441 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14964
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
THERMAL HEAT EXCHANGERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning changes in shift structure, interpretation
of house agreement, grading structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of air conditioning
components for the automotive and coach business and employs
over 200 workers. It has sustained substantial losses which
resulted in a survival package (which included 30
redundancies) being agreed between the parties in 1994.
Subsequently a dispute arose between the parties in relation
to the interpretation of the House Agreement specifically
concerning the following changes which the Company claims it
is entitled to effect in accordance with the agreement:-
1. Shift structure - introduction of a 3 shift
arrangement.
2. Introduction of a fixed evening shift.
3. The introduction of temporary workers into Grade 5
positions.
The Union maintains that these issues are not agreed. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and
conciliation conferences were held on the 20th June and 6th
July, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 24th July, 1995. A Court
hearing was held on the 12th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. Shift Structure
1. It is not practical to include a 39 hour week into the
shift structure as it is operated at present over a 5
day week cycle, i.e., there are only 36 hours available.
2. The Union has proposed that the Company should revert to
a normal second/third shift system, i.e., 8-4, 4-12,
12-8 or similar. This would allow a third shift, i.e.,
night shift, to be incorporated without any problem and
without extra premium.
3. The present system does not give workers the same
flexibility to include a third shift. The Union, in an
effort to get a solution to the problem commissioned an
industrial engineer's report (details supplied to the
Court) which endorses the Union position.
4. Fixed evening shift
1. At present employees have an option to work rotating
shifts with a premium of 20%. The Company proposals
will have the effect of reducing the opportunities of
shift work for the permanent workforce. They will also
create two different types of conditions for employees.
One group will not be committed to work a fixed shift.
The other group will have it in their contracts. This
will create many problems and also create friction
between the groups. It will restrict overtime
opportunities for day workers which constitute an
important part of earnings.
5. Temporary - Grade 5 posts
1. This issue can be overcome by the elimination of Grade 6
from the permanent workforce structure. The course in
cross-training presently being implemented by the
Company may resolve the issue.
6. The Union accepts that the Company is facing difficult
problems. It would, however, be in the Company's interests
to revert back to normal shifts. It would create a better
working environment giving the Company a chance to build a
good relationship between management and workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. Shift Structure
1. The current House Agreement provides for a totally
flexible approach from workers. This flexibility has
not been forthcoming.
2. In discussions on shift working the Union was given a
number of options all of which were graphically
illustrated and all of which catered for 3-shift
working. Some of the options contained specific
annotations referring to the issues arising from night
shift, should that option be chosen. The Union
eventually chose option 2. In addition paragraph 10:2
of the Agreement clearly specifies that a night shift
may be scheduled for up to 39 hours.
8. Fixed Shifts
1. The Company is currently in a very competitive situation
with high labour costs. It must secure volume business
and the profit margin achievable on this will be
approximately 2%.
2. For capacity reasons it is essential to work shifts in
order to produce the volume required. The current shift
rate is effectively day rate +47%. This rate would more
than eliminate the margins achievable. In order to
achieve the necessary volume the Company must reduce
shift costs. The introduction of fixed shifts will
achieve this.
3. The Company will guarantee 40 swing shift posts in order
to address the Union fear that the introduction of fixed
shifts will mean that those operators currently on swing
shifts would be replaced by fixed shift operators. A
shift rate of 25% was proposed.
9. Temporary Workers
1. The issue of temporary workers is clearly covered in the
agreement. The only restriction applying is the ratio
of temporary to permanent posts. The Union has refused
to accept temporary Grade 5 workers, despite the fact
that during negotiations examples were given which
obviously showed that the recruitment of Grade 5
temporaries was envisaged.
2. The Company has accelerated a cross training programme
through which Grade 6 operators would be trained for
Grade 5 posts and receive Grade 5 rate. The Company
however will always need Grade 6 operators also. This
grade cannot be eliminated.
10. The industrial relations climate in the plant is not good.
The Company believes that this situation has arisen because
the Union has failed to adopt a fully flexible approach to
the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court in considering all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions notes that the Company is
prepared to guarantee 40 rotating shift positions on the
introduction of a fixed shift system.
The Court also notes that it is proposed to fill the shift from
permanent employees who wish to volunteer for the shift, future
employees and temporaries.
Accordingly it is the view of the Court that the introduction of
the fixed shift will not adversely affect the jobs of the
permanent employees.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the fixed shift
system be accepted and introduced.
The Court notes the Company is prepared to be flexible regarding
the hours of the shifts subject to certain conditions and
recommends the parties agree the hours to be operated taking
account of the needs of the employees together with the
requirement to maximise efficiency and control overhead costs.
The Court considered the reservations expressed regarding the loss
of overtime earnings and recommends the operation of the system be
monitored and following a period of six months the parties discuss
the impact of the shift system including any losses of earnings
which may have occurred.
The Company is carrying out cross training of employees and it is
the view of the Court that this exercise may succeed in resolving
the disputes in relation to grading and the employment of
temporaries in Grade 5 positions.
The Court recommends that the employees work the staggered breaks
as requested by the Company, which request the Court finds is in
accordance with the provisions of the Company/Union Agreement on
flexibility.
When considering the views expressed by the parties the Court was
concerned at the lack of goodwill between them which can only add
to the difficulties in seeking to resolve issues in dispute.
The Court is aware that the parties are currently being assisted
by the Labour Relations Commission's Advisory Service.
The Court recommends the parties co-operate fully with this
service with a view to developing good relations and improving the
industrial relations climate generally.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th November, 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.