FULL RECOMMENDATION
) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Shift Working Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the processing, manufacturing and bottling of ciders, perries, fruit juices and soft drinks at its plant in Annerville, Clonmel. Apple crushing, juice fermentation, storage and filtration takes place at its Dowd's Lane premises.
In May, 1993 agreement was reached between the parties in relation to three shift cycle working. The Agreement provides for a shift premium of 26%. The dispute before the Court concerns the Company's request in March, 1996 that the three shift cycle Agreement be implemented. The six workers concerned currently operate a two shift cycle for which a premium of 22% is paid. The Unions argue that the 1993 Agreement is void on the grounds that the Company in 1995 introduced a seven day, three cycle shift in Dowd's Lane without any agreement from the Unions.
Following local level discussions the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 22nd April, 1996. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Clonmel on 4th June, 1996.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Unions' contention that the Company invalidated the 1993 Agreement when it introduced a seven day three cycle shift in Dowd's Lane without any agreement from the Unions. The Company conceded this during discussions with the Unions on 26th March, 1996.
2. The Unions are seeking that the Company enter into negotiations in relation to three shift cycle working and that the issue of loss of earnings be addressed.
3. The operation of a three cycle shift would have a serious impact on the earnings of the workers concerned and cause considerable disruption to their domestic and social life. In the circumstances the shift premium of 26% is totally inadequate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A valid agreement exists for 2/3 shift cycle working and this has been implemented by other groups.
2. The Unions acknowledge the existence of a formalised shift agreement to operate at management's request.
3. The Company's request that the six permanent shift workers transfer to three shift cycle working is in accordance with the Company/Union Agreement.
4. The Company breached the Agreement in circumstances whereby shift continued over the week-end and for pay purposes was treated as overtime which included the relevant shift premium. This method of payment was fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances arising.
5. The Unions were given the opportunity to pursue their case for any alleged loss of earnings.
6. The Company is concerned at the Unions' refusal to honour the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission from the parties, the Court is satisfied that the Company/Union Agreement of 1993 is still in place and should have been adhered to by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
1st July, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.