FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY INGREDIENTS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Method of redeployment of medically restricted workers from nightshift to dayshift.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to the redeployment of medically restricted workers from night shift to day shift.
The Company introduced an Occupational Health Program in 2003 which identified situations where employees with certain medical conditions be re-deployed to day shift. The dispute centres around the redeployment of night shift workers to day work and vice versa and the retention of the appropriate terms and conditions.
The Company are seeking the change in shift on a voluntary basis if possible and for seniority to apply if not.
The Union rejects the Company position on the basis that all workers being redeployed to day shift should maintain their 20% shift premium rate. There is also the issue that there are very few day shift jobs within the organisation and it may be impossible to get volunteers to change shift.
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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of March, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of September, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company wish to formalise the arrangement for the re-deployment of such workers. The age profile of the workforce requires that an agreement be reached for the Company going forward.
2. The Company has a duty of care to its workforce and while it must make every effort to accommodate its employees in these situations it must do so without increasing costs or eroding competitiveness.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is accepted that discussions had taken place and that some progress had been made between the parties. It is unacceptable, however, that workers will incur a loss as a result of the introduction of the new policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case concerns the Company's wish to introduce a formalised policy on the method of redeployment of medically restricted workers from night shift (10pm to 6am) to day work.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court notes that some progress has been achieved between the parties on devising such a policy. Both parties indicated to the Court that various possibilities were being considered and that further progress may be achievable. Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties should engage in further dialogue to finalise the matter.
However, in the event of the parties failing to reach agreement, the Court recommends that each situation should be dealt with on an ad hoc basis as the situation arises.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th September, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.