FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GROUP SCHNEIDER/TELEMECANQUE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of the Company/Union agreement on shift work.
BACKGROUND:
2. Telemecanique is a subsidiary of the French multinational Group Shneider and manufactures electromechanical switchgear for export. It employs 360 workers. Because of the prevailing commercial environment and production schedules, the Company requires increasing numbers of workers to go on shift work. The Company maintains that under the Company/Union Agreement, it may instruct workers to go on shift work when productivity needs dictate and that the agreement provides that all production workers may be required to do shift work. The Union contends that the shift requirement applies only to a section of the workers in production and that 108 of its members are day workers. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th of August, 1997 but agreement could not be reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th of December, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 19th of December, 1997. A letter recommendation was issued on the 23rd December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 108 workers concerned are day workers and have been employed by the Company in this capacity since their entry into the Company. Letters of appointment clearly state that these employees' hours of work are from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
2. There are two agreements (1977, 1979). The 1979 Agreement ('Blue Book') contains adjustments which did not appear in the 1977 pre-entry agreement (details supplied to the Court). Workers who joined the Company from 1977 to 1979 did not sign the 'Blue Book' which was given to them two years after joining the Company. Some of the workers concerned who were issued with letters of appointment for days state that they do not recall signing the 'Blue Book' but that it was given to them some 3/6 months after commencing employment.
3. There are in existence 4 different letters of appointment given to various workers. The workers' letters of appointment made no reference to shift work. The other 3 letters of appointment given to various groups refer to shift work. (They are not covered by this claim).
4. Internal memos and documents circulated specifically refer to 'day workers', and refer to 'first option' rather than requirement to work shifts. Promotional opportunities were turned down by the workers concerned to maintain day worker status.
5. Existing practice provides that where there is a shift requirement this is addressed by a combination of recruiting new workers to cover shifts and seek "volunteers" from the existing workforce who are interested on going on shift work.
6. The workers concerned have no experience of being managed in any other capacity than as day workers over the past 20 years. The Company made no reference to the clause in the 1977 agreement and to simply invoke that clause now has created significant anger and resentment.
7. The Union accepts that it is essential for the Company to remain competitive and workers have made a significant contribution. Workers accept that change is an ongoing process. It must be managed in a way that is acceptable and in line with best practice. Workers do not accept that the Company/Union Agreement should be used as a device to change conditions of employment in which they have been managed for 20 years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms and conditions of employment for all SIPTU members are contained within the Company/Union Agreement or 'Blue Book' as it is often referred to. Each employee is issued with this book at the commencement of employment and sign and return their written agreement to be bound by the conditions set out, together with their letter of appointment. All employees have this recorded on their file.
2. The clause in relation to shift work clearly applies to all employees covered by the Agreement and not just a select few as indicated by the Union.
3. Letters of appointment, which state clearly that they must be read in conjunction with the Company/Union Agreement, are brief by their nature and simply state the job being offered, the rate of pay and the hours of work on which the job is starting. At different times during the life of the Company, management have started workers on shift hours and subsequently move them to day hours and vice versa as the needs of the day have dictated. It is not justifiable or correct to say that, simply because a worker's letter of appointment stated that an employee was commencing on day hours, that they would be excluded by right from the clause relating to shift. That would be a total misrepresentation of the spirit and intent which applied at the time. This would affect up to approximately 100 people in the factory. Of this number, approximately 35 are already working on shift, having volunteered to do so in line with practice in this regard.
4. The shift clause as it applies in the Telemecanique Agreement is a standard and widely used clause within industry in a range of agreements.
5. The Company has been keen to enter local discussions to work with the Union and address any fears, concerns or practical difficulties arising from a need to further increase its numbers. In entering these discussions, the Company would be anxious (as indicated at conciliation) to continue with its policy of seeking, in the first instance, to apply its shift requirement on a voluntary basis and to minimise the need to rely on the contractual obligation of employees to work shift, as and when required.
6. The Company operates in a highly competitive, high volume manufacturing environment where responsiveness and adaptability to meet the needs of customer requirements are fundamental. Where volumes increase/decrease, or where processes become more automated, management must be in a position to balance shift/day needs across the factory.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the parties should immediately commence negotiations, without pre-condition, on arrangements by which the Company's commercial requirements for additional shift working by existing employees may be met.
In the event of these negotiations not resulting in a resolution of the issue now in dispute by the end of January 1998, it should be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th January, 1998______________________
T.O'D./D.T..Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.