FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SAINT-GOBAIN CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. A hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No 21354.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arises from Labour Court Recommendation No 21354. The Court recommended that:
- “The parties re-engage with a view to agreeing terms on which the plant will operate into the future.
Those talks should be completed within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation. Any issues outstanding at the end of those discussions should be referred to the Court for a definitive recommendation.”
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31 July 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
- A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4 September 2017.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company made no effort to engage since the previous Labour Court hearing.
2. In its meeting with the SIPTU Industrial Engineer the Company made no effort to justify its costings for the Sunday night start up.
3. If the Courts finds that the Company has a right to utilise Friday night working, then SIPTU requests that the Court recommends the overtime premium as it was agreed locally for working this shift.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Agreement was reached in December 2015 on the new shift pattern. That Agreement provides for a Monday to Saturday 3 shift pattern. No other shift pattern was agreed.
2. It was agreed that until such time as the market demanded required it, the Friday night/Saturday morning shift would not be utilised. This clearly recognised at a point in time into the future it would be available for utilisation.
3. The Company has honoured all aspects of the agreement and has gone further than could be expected to facilitate the acceptance of the agreement by the employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company will shortly go on 4 shift working and as a consequence the current dispute regarding the scheduling of 3 shift working will become moot for the foreseeable future.
Both sides however are anxious to have this issue resolved should it be necessary to revert to 3 shift working at any time in the future.
In that context the Court recommends that the Company calculate the total overtime worked in the year October 2016 to October 2017 and compare that amount with the total overtime worked by the affected members of staff in the first year during which 3 shift working is reintroduced.
The Company should agree to buy out any loss incurred at the rate of twice the annual loss suffered by each affected member of staff.
On that basis the Union should agree to operate three shift working commencing Monday of each week as set out in the written agreement between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
5th September, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.