FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABBOTT IRELAND (SLIGO) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 320 General Operatives - Shift Transfers
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Abbott Ireland and the SIPTU in relation to a proposed change to the shift system operated by the Company. The Company is involved the pharmaceutical sector and is a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, an American Company. Abbott Ireland operates a three shift system of days, evenings and night shifts.
The Company's current position is that it is necessary to change the current shift arrangements of certain employees. It contends that the contract of employment as well as the Company/ Union agreement provides for shift transfers in line with the business needs. The Union's position is that the changing of shifts is on a voluntary basis and cannot be imposed upon the workers. It also claims that there are personal reasons why workers who have been employed on day shifts for many years are now being forced to work evenings and night shifts.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 31st August, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Labour Court hearings took place on 10th September and 20th September, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management's proposal to impose shift transfers in in breach of the Company/Union Agreement. Shift transfers that have occurred in the past have been on a voluntary basis as provided for in the Agreement. It is unacceptable that manangement ignore the Agreement and seek to impose unreasonable shift changes on long serving loyal employees.
2 Every effort has been made to resolve this issue through the introduction of flexible working hours and a reduced working week. These attempts did not solve the issue as the workers felt that management cannot implement these changes unilaterally in breach of agreed procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Contract of Employment provides for changes across all shifts in line with the needs of the business. The Agreement does not apply provide for voluntary shift transfers
2. Management has made every effort to assist staff members with any dificulties they have with the proposed move. Flexible working arrangements have been introduced in an attempt to reduce the number required to change shift and to minimise disruption that may occur to other staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute concerns a proposal by the company to alter the attendance pattern of a number of workers. The established arrangements within the employment are that employees work days, evenings or nights.
Due to changed business requirements the company now requires workers to transfer from days to evenings and from evenings to nights on a permanent basis. The company contends that it is entitled to make these changes both under the collective agreement with the Union and on the basis of the individual contracts of employment.
The Union contends that the agreement provides that transfers from shifts can only take place on a voluntary basis. It argued that the established custom and practice supports this interpretation of the agreement as all previous transfers from one shift to another have been by agreement with the individuals concerned. This is disputed by the Company.
In the course of the hearing the Court suggested to the parties that regardless of how the agreement is to be interpreted the needs of the business have dictated that a change in attendance patterns is necessary. It deferred issuing a recommendation so as to afford the parties a further opportunity to explore the possibilities of agreeing an acceptable basis upon which the proposed changes could be introduced.
The parties subsequently informed the Court that they had explored the possibility of reaching agreement to the proposed changes on the basis that an exceptional exit package would be made available to accommodate those unwilling to change their attendance pattern. However the parties failed to agree on the value of the proposed exit package. Accordingly the dispute was referred back to the Court for a recommendation.
The Court has carefully considered the relevant provisions of the collective agreement. In the Court’s view it lacks clarity on the points at issue in this case and the conflicting interpretations argued for on both sides are cogent. However, while the dominant practice hitherto has been to introduce changes in attendance patterns by agreement the Court was informed of instances in which change has been effected compulsorily. Moreover, the terms of the contracts of employment issued to individuals is clear on the point in issue and unequivocally provides that the Company has the right to transfer employees across shifts. This standard contract has been in use over many years and no objection has been taken to the definitive language used. On balance, these considerations would tend to favour the Company’s interpretation of the agreement and indicate that it has a right to move staff across shifts.
The Court believes, however, that the attendance patters of staff must ultimately be dictated by the exigencies of the business. On this point the Court is fully satisfied that there is a real and immediate need for the changes proposed by the Company. For this reason, and having regard to its conclusions regarding the interpretation of the agreement, the Court recommends that the proposed transfer across shifts be accepted by those involved. The Court further recommends that the collective agreement be amended so as to provide in clear and unambiguous language that transfers can be made across shifts where the exigencies of the business so dictate.
There are exceptional features of this case arising from the absence of clarity in the collective agreement, the previous practice of introducing change in attendance by agreement and the length of time during which those affected have worked permanently on days. In these circumstances a one–off severance package for those with an established pattern of day work is justified.
The Court recommends that the Company’s offer be modified so as to provide that those on day work with ten years or more service should be provided with a voluntary severance option equal to €1,500 per year of service, and pro rata for those working less than full-time hours. In the case of those nearing retirement the gross amount payable should not exceed their expected earnings up to retirement.
This should be regarded as a once-off and exceptional measure. Accordingly this recommendation is not intended to have any precedent value and should not be quoted or relied upon in support of any claim in the future within this employment or elsewhere.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th_Sept 2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.