FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COVIDIEN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Change from Four-Cycle to Three-Cycle shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. Covidien Tullamore, founded in 1981 by Sherwood Medical is a purpose built facility of 193,500 sq. feet. The Tullamore facility currently employs 652 full time equivalents. The average service in the Company is 10 years.
The Company has experienced a significant downturn in business volume demand and as a result is now seeking to change production from a four-cycle shift operation to a three-cycle shift system.
The Union will not accept Management's position regarding the terms of a three-cycle shift arrangement that Management wish to introduce to replace a four-cycle arrangement currently being worked by group of approximately 120 Union members at the Tullamore site.
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 3rd March, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The four-cycle shift is based on an average of 42 working hours per week; moving to a three-cycle shift will, the Union maintains, result in the loss of 2 hours overtime i.e 3 paid hours per week. The Union is seeking 2.5 times the annual loss of rostered overtime to be paid on advance of the move.
2. The Union requests that members be given a choice between getting paid the 40th hour at the overtime rate or banking the hour to use as 'lieu' time to be taken at a later date.
3. The Union maintains that leave on a four cycle pattern is 20 x 12 hour shifts whereas the leave on three-cycle shifts is 20 x 8 hour shifts. The Union is seeking compensation for the reduction in annual leave.
4. The Union maintains that in addition to the losses already identified there will be additional expenses incurred by members as they will be rostered for 10 of 14 days (20 journeys) as opposed to 7 of 14 days (14 journeys). The Union is seeking compensation in the form of a lead-in payment for the introduction of the change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management maintains that not all employees will lose out on 2 hours overtime per week. The Company seeks that any formula to apply to loss of overtime should be service weighted.
2. The Company rejects the Union's request that staff be allowed bank the 40th hour as annual leave on the basis that this would result in excess of 600 days of annual leave (100 employees x 6 days).
3. The Company contends that the affected employees were receiving the same annual leave entitlement as their 550 other colleagues. The Company did offer one extra days' holidays on a once off basis in order to try and resolve the issue.
4. The Company maintains the notion of a lead-in payment is not sustainable or appropriate in the circumstances. The Company is, however, willing to offer reasonable compensation package for loss of overtime and annual leave as well as to honour the existing shift transfer agreement of 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:-
Shift Premium
The Court notes that a collective agreement exists between the parties which provides that three-cycle shift working will attract a premium of 20%. The Court cannot see any justifiable basis upon which it could recommend any departure from the terms of that agreement. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Loss of Shift Premium
It is noted that this matter is no longer is dispute between the parties.
Loss of Overtime
The Court recommends that compensation for loss of regular overtime be compensated at twice the annual loss as it relates to each individual affected.
Overtime Working (40th Hour)
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for a facility to bank this hour and take time in lieu.
Annual Leave Losses
The Court recommends that in the leave year 2010-2011 an additional two days of annual leave be provided, a further two days in 2011-2012 and one day in 2012-2013, on a once off basis.
Lead in Payment
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for a lead in payment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13 April, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.