FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DRIVER HARRIS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Dispute regarding shift work
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in New Ross and manufactures electrical cable. In December 2000, the claimants (two) were employed on day work. Due to a downturn in the 'Leads' area where they were working, the company requested them to go on 2 cycle shift work in another area of the plant. They declined to go on shift and were suspended. They remain suspended at the present time.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th October, 2002 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 6th June, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The claimant's work pattern was 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Their job changed by 100%
2. At the LRC in March 2001 a proposal was put to the claimants to find other employees willing to do all nights. This was done, but the proposal was rejected by the Company.
3. The Union sought redundancies for the claimants. The Company refused and offered minimum notice. The Union rejected the offer.
4. In November 2001 through a rationalisation plan 52 employees were made redundant. The Company would not consider the two claimants.
5. The suspension has lasted too long. The claimants have not benefited from Social Welfare for over 12 months because the Company said jobs were available.
6. Due to personal circumstances the claimants are unable to avail of the shift rota.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 It is part of the claimants' contracts, and well established custom and practice that employees are required to work shift.
2. A number of other employees were affected in the same way. The Company could not justify special treatment for some, over and above others.
3. The redeployment was forced on the Company by negative market conditions and the serious deteriorating financial position of the Company.
4. It falls on the claimants to decide at this stage what they intend to do as the Company cannot let this matter drift on indefinitely.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the claimants are required by their conditions of employment to the work the shift pattern proposed by the Company. Furthermore, it is clear that the claimants did in fact work on this shift pattern for a considerable period prior to being accommodated on day work.
On the facts of this case the Court is not satisfied that the claimants are redundant. It is, however, noted that the Company have offered to pay the claimants in lieu of notice should their employment be terminated. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that if the claimants are not prepared to accept the employment available to them they should accept the offer of payment in lieu of notice. In that event their service should be reckonable from the date on which they originally commenced employment with the Company (any breaks being disregarded) and should be deemed to be continuous up to the date of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th_June, 2003______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.