FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BULMERS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Four cycle shift working.
BACKGROUND:
2. Bulmers Limited is a member of the C&C Group plc. The Company is involved in the processing, manufacture and bottling at its plant and employs over 650 Workers in Clonmel. In 1999 the Company concluded a Capital Investment Agreement with both SIPTU & ATGWU which yielded base pay increases for employees in return for co-operation with the introduction and operation of new plant and equipment. This Agreement also made provision for the operation of four cycle continuous shift, if at any time in the future the Company wished to operate it and the agreed shift premium was 33%.
The Company contends that current operational needs require an immediate introduction of the 4 cycle shift, in a number of different operational areas, in order to guarantee continuing supply.
Discussions at local level were held between the Company and both Unions on the need to introduce 24/7 working in a number of critical areas of the business. The dispute could not be resolved 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 7th February, 2007, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th May 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1.The Unions are of the view that the 1999 Capital Investment Programme does not include an agreement on four cycle shift working .
2. The Unions maintain that there would be a substantial loss of earnings and overtime pay for those transferring over to the proposed four cycle shift.
3. The Union submitted a claim for a Productivity / Incentive bonus which was rejected by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4.1. The Company has an agreement with the Unions to work four cycle shift dating back to 1999.
2. Given the extent of the Capital Investment Programme it is unpalatable to consider that the Company does not have co-operation with what can only be termed standard four shift working in a modern bottling facility.
3. There are real benefits the employees who work a four cycle shift. The model that the Company have proposed to introduce is of two weeks of day shift followed by two weeks of night shift.This will give each employee a long weekend off every second weekend.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that an agreement concluded between the parties in 1999 allows for the introduction of four cycle shift working. The Court is further satisfied that the terms agreed at Conciliation, which were recommended for acceptance, and which were set out in the IRO's letter of 27th February 2007 are generous and leave no room for improvement.
While the Court recognises that these proposals have been rejected there is no reasonable basis upon which it could recommend that they be further enhanced.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the final proposals made prior to the reference to the Court be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th June 2007______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.