FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOART LONGYEAR (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Shift arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company in April 1981. He claims that his contract of agreement stated that he would be put on a 2 - cycle shift on 3 months probation. In May, 1981, agreement was reached with the Irish Transport and General Workers Union (ITGWU) which allowed for 3 - cycle shift working. (The worker was not a member of a Union at that time). Permanent employees who were prepared to work the 3- cycle shift were paid a once-off lump sum of £1,300 (€1,650.66). No payment was made to those on probation. In May, 1981, the worker was placed on a 3 - cycle shift. He was made permanent in July, 1981.
In April, 2001, the Union wrote to the Company seeking to have 4 individuals, including the worker concerned, revert back to a 2 - cycle shift. The Company refused the request and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th of March, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of May, 2004, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The worker was employed as a permanent 2 - cycle shift worker in 1981 and he signed an agreement to that effect.
2. He was not agreeable to doing a 3 - cycle shift but was told that the Company could do what it liked. He did not sign a 3 - cycle shift agreement, unlike other employees who moved to this shift.
3.The worker was excluded from the decision making process on a 3 - cycle shift agreement as he was not allowed to join a Union.
4. The worker raised the matter on a number of occasions ( 1981, 1984, and 2001.). The long delay in dealing with his case has caused him great stress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was clearly understood by all parties that the agreement between the Company and the ITGWU in 1981 would require all employees on probation to work a 3- cycle shift. It was agreed with the Union that no payment would be made to workers on probation.
2.The worker commenced 3 - cycle shift three weeks into his probation. If he was not agreeable to this arrangement he would not have been offered permanent employment with the Company in July, 1981. He has worked a 3 - cycle shift for 23 years.
3. The terms of the 1981 agreement were further endorsed in the Company/Union agreement of 1985. Any move to endorse the worker on a 2 - cycle shift operative would undermine this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claimant in this case has worked on 3-cycle shifts for some 23 years. There is no doubt that, regardless of what was contained in his original letter of appointment, the requirement to work this shift pattern has become incorporated in his conditions of employment.
Accordingly, the Court can see no basis on which it can recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd June, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.