LCR22365

1.Change In Work Practices

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 24 November 2020 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 February 2021.

UNION ARGUMENTS:

2. The Union objected to the inclusion of Saturday in the roster as it maintained that Saturday working had been voluntary until then and had attracted an overtime payment.
3. The Union seeks losses of 58 hours pay for the period from 4th May to 30th June 2020, when the Claimant were required to work on a Saturday as part of their shift and the introduction of a shift premium.

EMPLOYER ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company claims that this temporary shift working arrangement was introduced in order to provide appropriate social distancing for its workers due to Covid 19.

2. Due to the limited space available on the site, it was not feasible to have all employees on site at any one time.

3. The Company contends that due to a sharp decline in sales revenue, it was necessary in July 2020 to reduce the 40 hours weekly pay to 36 hours pay per week.


RECOMMENDATION:

The claim before the Court, submitted by the Union on behalf of eight mechanical fitters and technical workers, concerns changes to work practices and their requirement to work shift. Up until 30th March 2020, the Claimants were working Monday to Friday, from 8.00am to 4.30pm, 40 hours per week.

On 30th March 2020, the Company introduced a two-shift system whereby the Claimants were required to work 3 x 12-hour shifts, i.e., 36 hours per week while continuing to be paid for 40 hours. One crew worked 36 hours per week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

The second crew worked 36 hours per week, Thursday, Friday and Monday. On 1^stMay 2020 this changed to 3 x 12-hour shifts working 36 hours, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and the second shift crew working Monday, Tuesday and Saturday. On 1st July 2020, the Claimants’ pay was reduced from 40 hours to 36 hours per week. This system operated until 28th November 2020, when normal working arrangements and pay were restored.

Management explained that this temporary shift working arrangement was introduced in order to provide appropriate social distancing for its workers due to Covid 19.

It said that due to the space on the site, which is confined, it was not feasible to have all employees on site at any one time, so it was faced with moving to a two-shift arrangement so that it could ensure safe social distancing for its employees. It stated that due to a sharp decline in sales revenue, it was compelled in July 2020 to reduce the 40 hours weekly pay to 36 hours pay per week.

It stated that in taking these measures to comply with social distancing regulations, it has had a negative impact on production. Since 28th November 2020, systems have been put in place to address social distancing measures.

The Union objected to the change in work practice, which it maintained had been introduced despite overwhelming resistance and without proper consultation and it was at all times operated under protest. It objected to the inclusion of Saturday in the roster as it maintained that Saturday working had been voluntary until then and had attracted an overtime payment.

It stated that when management proposed the reduction from 40 hours pay to 36 hours pay, the Claimants felt intimated and pressurised and the Union became involved, however, management refused to engage with it. At this point the Union put a proposal to management to resolve the issue.

The Union’s claim before the Court is twofold, firstly it claimed the introduction of a shift premium, for the period from 1st July to 28th November 2020, when the Company withdrew the 4 hours payment per week:-


Shift 1 : Monday, Tuesday and Saturday - 22% shift premium
Shift 2: Wednesday, Thursday and Friday - 18% shift premium


It also sought losses of 58 hours pay for the period from 4th May to 30th June 2020, when the Claimant were required to work on a Saturday as part of their shift.

Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Court understands that the temporary measures put in place were designed to provide a safe place of work and to provide continuity of employment during unprecedented times. However, the Court notes that the reduction in pay unilaterally changed the Claimants’ terms and conditions of employment.

Therefore, the Court recommends that discussions should take place to restore the four hours’ reduction in the Claimants’ pay that took place during the period from 1^stJuly 2020 until 28th November 2020. These discussions should centre on a payment plan to restore the pay over a period of time while reflecting the Company’s return to positive sales performance figures.

The Court recommends that such discussions should be conducted as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, should be finalised within three weeks from the date of this Recommendation.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Caroline Jenkinson
DC	______________________
16 February 2021	Deputy Chairman