FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY INGREDIENTS LISTOWEL - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Manning Levels
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to craft manning levels on site.
The Union said that in September 2016 an electrician retired from the Services Maintenance team creating a vacancy in the that Department. Following this an electrician from the Spread Maintenance team was transferred to the Services team. The non-replacement of the vacancy and the transfer of the electrician from the Spreads team have led to changes to the rosters which is affecting the work life balance of the Workers.
The Employer said that certain products from the Spreads department of the plant moved to the UK due to falling customer orders and the lack of applicable technology at the plant. The Company could not justify maintaining a full complement of 4 full-time electricians in the Spreads area.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4 January 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13 June 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a long history of two rosters on site; the first being one weekend in four and the other, one weekend in three.
2. Following the transfer of an electrician from the Spreads / Yellowfats area the Workers agreed in the interest of harmony and goodwill to operate under protest to cover the 1 in 3 roster to allow for an agreement to be negotiated.
3. These changes have had an enormous impact on the Workers work life balance where they are now working extra weekend / extra call outs.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Owing to the volume and output that was drastically falling in the Spreads department, it was clear that the requirements for servicing this department were changing.
2. As a result the Company took the decision to offer an electrician within the Spreads Maintenance Team the opportunity to work with the Services Maintenance team, to replace the employee who had retired from the Services team.
3. The Company could not justify a full complement of 4 full time electricians on the Spreads team when almost 80% of the product and certain physical plant machinery and hardware no longer existed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter before the Court relates to craft manning levels on the site. The matter before the Court is characterised as deriving from the impact of manning levels on Craftspersons located in the Spreads / yellowfats area in terms of liability on the call-out roster.
Four such craftspersons have for a number of years carried a one weekend in four liability. Other craftspersons on the site have carried a one weekend in three liability across the same period. A retirement followed by a re-assignment of a craftsperson from speads / yellowfats on the site have combined to result in current arrangements requiring a roster liability of one weekend in three for the three remaining craftspersons located in the spreads / yellowfats area.
The Court has not received any submission to the effect that manning levels on the site have historically been a matter for negotiation and agreement. The Court must therefore assume that the matter of manning has historically been a matter to be decided by management in the context of the requirements of the site and the nature of the maintenance and service operation.
The Court has had no submission suggesting that in general terms the numbers of craftspersons on the site are inadequate in the context of current workloads. The Court notes the detail supplied as regards a substantial decline in production in the spreads / yellowfats area which has resulted in re-deployment of substantial numbers of production staff and the relocation of plant and equipment from Listowel to the United Kingdom. The Court also notes the submission of management that there remains a lack of clarity as regards certain aspects of the operation over the coming period.
The Court has been made aware that the contract of employment of craftspersons provides that it is a condition of employment that a craftsperson makes him or herself available for call out“as per the present rostering arrangements or any amendment therefore as agreed with your manager”. The Court is not aware of any agreement to amend rostering arrangements “with your manager” but notes the parties’ disagreement as to the meaning of the phrase“as per the present rostering arrangements”
The Court is of the view that manning levels are a very practical matter and that such levels should normally reflect workloads both current and expected. The Court understands that call-out rosters are structured to reflect the number of craftspersons on the site.
The Court is concerned that local engagement on this matter may not have been as effective as it could have been. In all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties should re-engage locally and with the assistance of the WRC if necessary in order to share understanding of the practical matters affecting manning levels of craftspersons and should proceed from there to agree the on-call rosters which make the best use of available resources across the site.
In the event that the parties do not succeed in finding agreement on this very practical matter the parties may ask the WRC to refer the matter back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
26 June, 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.