FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STEEL COMPANY OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of shifts, redundancy and reorganisation
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of British Steel. The dispute concerns 20 manual workers and relates to the Company's proposal to introduce shift work and effect a number of redundancies. The proposal was rejected by the Union and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation Conferences were held on the 6th May, 14th May and 2nd July, 1998. Following the final Conciliation Conference, the Company made the following proposal:
Shift premium = 20%
Shift pattern year one = 6.00 a.m. - 2.00 p.m./12.00 noon - 8.00 p.m.
Shift pattern year two = 6.00 a.m. - 2.00 p.m./2.00 p.m. - 10.00 p.m.
Annualised hours/overtime
Year One - 10% equivalent to 10 hours per month
Year Two - 5% equivalent to 5 hours per month
Year Three - 2.5% equivalent to 2.5 hours per month
or
Year One, Two and Three 5 hours per month.
The overtime to be paid even if overtime is not required. If overtime is required then the employees owe the company the above hours and the hour would be drawn off on a rota basis with a monthly report to show an equitable spread of the work. If an employee failed to co-operate with the company then he/she would not receive the payment. If the Company requires more than the above then the appropriate overtime rates would be paid for the hours in excess of the above.
The payment of a once off lump sum of £150 per employee.
The Union claimed a shift premium of 25% for all workers and claimed compensation of £1,500 per worker, the Company rejected the claim. Further agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th September, 1998. A Court Hearing was held on the 22nd October, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The workers concerned have long service and have been employed on day work for many years. They are extremely apprehensive about the Company's plans which were introduced without adequate consultation. The move to shift work will have a very significant effect on their personal, domestic and social lives.
2. The workers will suffer a substantial loss in overtime earnings and tea money allowance.
3. Workers will experience difficulties in relation to transport to the early morning shifts as public transport would not be available at that time.
4. Under the proposed shifts employees will be required to work alone in various areas of the plant leaving them in a dangerous situation should an accident occur whilst they work alone.
5. The premium of 25% and £1,500 compensation claimed are very reasonable in view of the enormous changes sought by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. It is essential that the Company move to shift working in order to maintain its viability and to achieve a reasonable level of profitability. At present the company is not achieving a sufficient return on volume to justify future capital investment in Ireland.
2. The pattern of work as outlined by the Company to the workers is presently operated in the Company's plants in the UK. It is necessary for the Irish operation to reduce its costs and bring itself operationally into line with the UK insofar as possible and as quickly as possible.
3. The shift premium on offer for two cycle shift i.e. 20% is the norm and the offer of compensation of £150 per worker is reasonable and the best the Company can do in the circumstances. To further increase the offer of compensation or shift premium would call into question the worth of proceeding with the exercise and will place the future of the Irish Company in jeopardy.
4. The Company at all times will comply with Health and Safety legislation. Any concerns of the workers in relation to Health and Safety issues will be discussed with the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both parties and understands the Company's need to introduce a shift system if it is going to avoid negative decisions in respect of investment in the Irish company, which is critical to securing the future of its employees.
While the Court sympathises with the Union's arguments against working shift, it accepts the Company's argument that the continued viability of the company is at risk.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the offer made a conciliation should be accepted by the employees as the most appropriate solution, i.e.
- Shift premium of 20%
- Shift pattern in Year One6 a.m. - 2 p.m.
12 noon - 8 p.m.
Shift pattern in Year Two6 a.m. - 2 p.m.
2 p.m. - 10 p.m. - Annualised hours/overtime arrangements as follows:
Year One - 10% equivalent to 10 hours per month
Year Two - 5% equivalent to 5 hours per month
Year Three - 2.5% equivalent to 2.5 hours per month
Or
Year One, Two and Three 5 hours per month
The overtime to be paid even if overtime is not required. If overtime is required then the employees owe the company the above hours and the hour would be drawn off on a rota basis with a monthly report to show an equitable spread of the work. If an employee failed to co-operate with the company then he/she would not receive the payment. If the Company requires more than the above then the appropriate overtime rates would be paid for the hours in excess of the above.
The payment of a once off lump sum of £150 per employee.
Finally the Court considers it appropriate that both parties carry out a review of the shift operations after it has been operating for 12 months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th November, 1998______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.