FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY WOMEN'S REFUGE & SUPPORT SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. The elimination of the night shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the elimination of the night shift which has resulted in a 50% reduction in the hours of work for three members of staff. This 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 27th February 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th September 2015.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company eliminated the night shift in November 2014 and the three Workers had their hours cut from 42 to 21 hours each week.
2. This cut applied only to the three workers concerned who are the longest serving workers with 14, 17 and 18 years’ service respectively.
3. Management's proposal to resolve this matter is based on the payment of an on-call allowance, relief cover and attendance at weekly meetings which are not acceptable to the Workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company relies predominantly on State funding and donations/fundraising to deliver its services. Since 2010 overall income has dropped significantly.
2. The withdrawal of the Rent Supplement Payment reduced funding by 7%. The Company anticipates a further reduction in funding from TUSLA of 3.5%.
3. In order to meet the challenges the Company sought the elimination of the midnight to 9:00am cover Monday to Sunday and replace it with an on-call arrangement, relief cover and attendance at weekly meetings to replace some of the hours lost.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the elimination of a night shift and its impact on three workers. As a result of severe cuts in funding it was deemed necessary by Management to curtail its services from midnight to 9.00am. This resulted in a reduction in hours of the workers affected reducing their hours from on average 42 hours per week to an average of 21 hours per week. The Union sought to reverse the action taken or at least to provide the workers with a minimum of 31 hours per week.
In an effort to resolve the difficulties which arose, discussions took place between the parties on proposals to increase the hours on offer to the workers concerned. Management made proposals to improve the number of hours by the introduction of on-call hours, relief cover and attendance at a weekly meeting. This was rejected by the Union on behalf of the workers concerned.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court is of the view that the parties should engage in further discussions to include and take account of the proposals made by Management on 7thJanuary 2015 which incorporate its previous proposals made on 26thNovember 2014. The Court is of the view that with agreed modifications to these proposals coupled with the extra hours provided since 1stJuly 2015 for relief cover, efforts should be made to try to achieve the minimum 31 hours aspired to by the Union. The Court recommends that these discussions should be completed within a period of three months from the date of this Recommendation.
When agreement is reached on new arrangements for the workers concerned, they should be reviewed after twelve months of operation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
22nd September, 2015Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.