FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MEDISIZE IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Maintenance cover.
BACKGROUND:
2. Medisize is a hospital products manufacturing company which supplies the international healthcare industry. It is based in Letterkenny since 1982 and currently has 169 employees on its payroll. In March 2007 the Company proposed a new shift arrangement but the proposal was rejected by the Unions on the grounds that it was not family-friendly and that the seven members of the maintenance team would be unable to cover the required 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 26th June, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Both parties have agreed to be bound by the Labour Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st July, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. To date there has been no need to implement the new proposals as there is no requirement for the machinery to work 24/7.
2. The out-of-hours on-call system which is used to cover all maintenance requirements, including the weekends, is working perfectly well and to introduce the March 2007 proposals now would only add to the financial costs of running the Company.
3.A number of the maintenance staff have indicated that if the new shift arrangements were to be introduced they would have to exit the Company because of family commitments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Negotiations between the shop stewards and the Management commenced in February 2007 regarding the introduction of a new shift pattern so that at least one member of the maintenance team be on duty at all times to achieve the assurance and efficiency levels required by the Company's customers.
2. The Company / Union procedural agreement already provides for operational flexibility and, in addition co-operation between the various Craft Workers was agreed in 2000. Both of these agreements must hold if the Company is to deliver product to its customers in the current challenging market.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the principle of 24/7 maintenance cover has been accepted on the basis of a minimum of one appropriately-qualified maintenance person being present at all times.
The Company / Union Agreement, in the view of the Court, gives the Company the right to introduce such a system.
In so introducing such a system, the Company should consult with the craftspersons individually in order to establish how to proceed in the light of any genuine and definable domestic difficulties which might be encountered by any of the workers concerned in that situation.
The Court notes that the parties have agreed in advance to be bound by this Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
4th August, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.