FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AURIVO CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED TRADING AS AURIVO ANIMAL FEEDS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - EIGHT GENERAL OPERATIVES (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Claimed breach of a collective agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a disagreement between the parties as to changes made to a collective agreement concerning five-over-six-day working.
The Unions said that in 2014 local Shop Stewards agreed terms for two new cleaning roles and stated that they could not agree changing terms and conditions for existing roles without balloting the members.
The Employer said that the changes agreed applied to all new staff recruited after the agreement.
- 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 13 March 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26 June 2018.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Shop Stewards agreed for two new roles to work a five-over-six-day working week and to attract a lower shift rate.
2. The changes related to new roles only and when the members progressed to working in established roles they would attract the agreed Monday to Friday normal working week.
3. There is no agreement for the changes to be made to existing roles.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The Employer said that the changes to the collective agreement were discussed at local level with on-site Shop Stewards before their introduction.
2. The workers accepted these new roles and started on October 2014, fully aware of the terms and conditions and how they differed from pre-2014 red-circled employees.
3. These new terms and conditions were in place for a period of three years and well- embedded before any official grievance was raised.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is a claim by the Union on behalf of eight General Operatives and Maintenance personnel employed at the Company’s animal feed milling plant in Ballaghaderren, Co Roscommon. The issue in dispute concerns an alleged breach of a collective agreement when the Company introduced five-over-six-day working in the milling section.
The Union stated that in 2014 terms were agreed with the Company for two new cleaning roles at the milling section which provided for five-over-six-day working. It submitted that this agreement provided that new entrants to the role would work five- over-six-days and in the event of working regular shift hours would be paid at a lower shift allowance than the established shift rate. However, it submitted that when these employees progressed to established roles that they would work the agreed Monday to Friday normal working week.
The Company interpreted the agreement as applying not just to new entrants to the cleaning roles but to all new entrants to the Company from March 2014. It stated that the practice since then has been to employ all new employees on these new terms and stated that there had never been any issues raised by the Union since then.
The Union dispute the requirement of existing employee to work five over six days, saying that existing employees never agreed or acquiesced to these new conditions. It sought to have the agreed working week Monday to Friday re-established for all roles except the two cleaning roles in the milling section and sought reimbursement of lost earnings since the introduction of five-over-six-day working and the lower shift allowance.
The Union stated that it was committed to engage in discussions with the Company on the introduction of the new working arrangements.
The Company stated that five-over-six-day working was agreed with a reduced shift allowance in March 2014. It stated that this was necessary to ensure enhanced competitiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the business in a market undergoing substantial competitive pressures.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that the agreement reached locally in 2014 introduced the concept of five-over-six-day working for all new entrants to the Company. This agreement is in compliance with the provision in the Company’s Employee Handbook which states as Clause 12.1: -
- “Due to the operational requirements of the various business within the Company, it is a condition of employment that all employees to whom this Agreement relates shall engage in shift work and Saturday/Sunday working if the need arises.”
In conclusion the Court is satisfied from the evidence submitted that the agreement reached at local level in 2014 provided for five-over-six-day working and the lower shift allowance for all new recruits employed since mid-2014.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Company’s position and rejects the Union’s claim.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
18 July, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.