FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IMPERIAL TOBACCO REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - FOUR WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY DAVID WALSH & CO. SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Exclusion from night shifts
BACKGROUND:
2. The four workers were employed in early 1999 and were made permanent on the 1st of November, 1999. The Company acquired Douwe Egberts (Irl) in April, 1998 and this resulted in the need for 3-cycle shift work. Union members were unhappy to work night shifts resulting in the Company recruiting employees whose contracts stipulated that they work night shifts. The Company's case is that when the 4 workers concerned were made permanent in November, 1999, they signed these new contracts which stated that they"must be prepared to work overtime and shift work, including nightshift, if and when necessary."The Union's case is that the 4 workers were told that they would only have to work nightshift for a short time and that, thereafter, the new recruits would do all nightshift that was required. In 2004 the case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation took place. A number of proposal were issued including one which stated that the 4 workers concerned would not have to do nightshifts. However, following a secret ballot this proposal was rejected by the other Union members.
The workers referred their case to the Labour Court on the 5th of June , 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd November, 2007, in Roscommon. The workers agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Only 25 out of 55 workers voted in the ballot which rejected the LRC's proposal.
2. There are a large number of permanent employees who are not subjected to nightshift although they are on the same contract as the 4 workers.
3. There is a waiting list of staff who wish to work nightshift and, on this basis, it is not necessary for the workers concerned work the nightshift.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company continues to require employees to work nightshift if it is to remain competitive.
2. The 4 workers signed contracts specifically reflecting the requirement to work nightshift. The Company has endeavoured to man the nightshift on a voluntary basis and, as such, the workers concerned rarely have to work the shift.
3. For the Company to now exclude the 4 workers from nightshift would adversely impact on the good working relationship enjoyed in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court on behalf of four workers concerns their claim to be excluded from night shift working. They maintained that following a conciliation conference, which took place at the Labour Relations Commission in November 2004, they should be excluded from night shift working.
The Court notes that a proposal emanating from the conciliation conference provided for the exclusion of the workers concerned, however, this proposal was rejected by the Union involved. Consequently, the Company held the view that the workers concerned were obliged in accordance with their contracts of employment to operate the night shift as required by the operational demands of the business.
The Court notes that the workers involved were provided with written contracts of employment which they accepted and signed on 28th /29th October 1999. The contracts state:
- “You must be prepared to work overtime and shiftwork including nightshift, if and when necessary.”
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th December, 2007______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.