Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Maintenance Technician

A Manufacturing Company

Representatives

A SIPTU Trade Union Representative

An IBEC Representative

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001713

22/08/2023

Th Worker alleged that the requirement for him to move to the evening shift from the day shift was not appropriate from a basis of seniority and improper process of analysis of his skill set.

The Worker, commenced his permanent employment on Monday the 02 October, 1995 as a Production Operator and as a Maintenance Technician for the Employer from Monday, 28 February 2000.  

The Employer alleges that following a review of business requirements, and specifically within the ‘maintenance technician group across the Site,’ a ‘rebalancing of staffing levels across the shifts’ was required. No documentation was provided regarding same.

The Worker has repeatedly asked what this meant and how was such requirement determined and why he was in fact the only employee who was affected by this requirement, to no avail.

On Thursday, 20 October 2022 - The Worker, and at the time and one other colleague, were advised by their Maintenance Manager, (and in writing on Friday the 21 October 2022) that they would need to change from their current day shift work pattern to either an evening work pattern or the night work shift pattern going forward. 

On Monday, the 24 October 2022 - on behalf of the Worker, Mr. PP a trade union official, wrote to the Employer on behalf of the Worker (and another colleague who since this time, has not been moved onto a different shift from his day shift), to seek clarification as to why the two men, to include the Worker were chosen at that time.

The Worker has been working with the Employer since September 1993 to September 1994 as a production operator and had to stop working to complete a Level 7 in Production Engineering at MTU, which he completed in a swift 9 months (due to his diligence and the fact that he already had a level 7 in mechatronics). The Worker then returned to his work duties in June 1995, however only as a Summer-Worker Production-Operator. The Employer and/or an agent acting on its behalf terminated his contract of employment in September 1995 but rehired him as a fulltime Production-Operator a week later, in October 1995. The Worker was offered a temporary post as a Maintenance Tech from June 1996 to March 1997 after which time he was returned to Production Operator. 

The Worker signed his new contract for his new permanent position as a Maintenance Technician on Monday 28 February 2000. This was initially on nightshift but before he was moved to evening shift in June 2002.  The Worker secured the dayshift in February 2005 until January 2023.

The Worker has a clean record with the company since 1993 and advises that any appraisals or reviews that he has had, feedback has always been very positive during his approximately 30 years of employment with the Employer.  The Worker was blind sighted as to why now, he would be forced to work the night/evening shift with the reasoning being provided was that he was the least senior Technician, and as such he was chosen.

The Worker launched his grievance internally on Tuesday, the 25 October 2022 on the basis that he is not the least senior Technician and therefore has been wrongly selected.

The Worker and his SIPTU Representative at that time set out their case to management to best seek clarity regarding this matter.

The Employer’s own Company Policies and Procedures regarding their Shift Change Policy were discussed, however not applied in this instance.

An agreement regarding what the Employer and/or an agent acting on its’ behalf considered as seniority as agreed back in 2009 discussed, but not applied in this instance. 

Though it was alleged by the Employer that there are three very distinct differences between the Technicians, the Worker can confirm, via email correspondence received by him from an agent acting on behalf of the Employer in or around December 2017 to provide clarity at the time of the ‘new’ position of Manufacturing Technician being ‘the same as a Maintenance Technician’. Therefore, is the Worker’s knowledge/skillset being discredited as the only justification for him being the only one having to move shift one must ask.

The letter of the 16 November 2022 to the Worker from the Employer was degrading his knowledge and expertise, and the Representative argued that this was done without any reasonable and/or objective justification.

The Worker and his Shop Steward disputed this and in support of their argument, they referred to an LRC protocol, which sets out the protocol for compulsory redundancy and seniority in that regard, however again not considered in this instance 

The letters of the 14 December 2022 and of the 23 February 2023 from the Employer to the Worker demonstrate a blatant disregard towards the Worker as a long-term employee with the Employer.

The Representative argued that the Worker was wrongfully selected, as the only candidate to be forced to move to the night or evening work pattern shift. They stated that this was done without reasonable and/or objective justification and requested the Adjudicator to reinstate the Worker back to his day work pattern shift and should the Adjudicator deem it fit, to compensate the Worker for the above-mentioned treatment to-day.  

The Worker was advised by his manager Mr PK on the 20th October 2022 that he was required to change from day shift (work schedule) and he was offered a choice of either evening or night shift.

The Worker alleged he had been wrongly selected, as he believed that he was not the least senior in the position of the maintenance technician group and raised a grievance in line with the company procedures.    

The claim was rejected in its entirety on the basis that there are three fixed shifts (work schedules) day shift, evening shift and night shift. When there is a requirement for a person to move shift for example from day shift to evening shift, it is based on the least senior person within the position who moves and this is accepted by the union.

The Employer is in the business of manufacturing components for the automotive industry and employs over 900 staff.

 The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on the 2nd October 1995.  The Worker is currently employed in the role of maintenance technician.. The Worker earns a salary of €1157.89 gross per week. (Inclusive of a 20% shift allowance.

Following a review of business requirements, within the maintenance technician group across the site, it was determined that there was a requirement for a rebalance of the staffing levels across the shifts within the maintenance technician group in the electronic production area.  

The team of maintenance technicians at the time comprised of 10 on days, 7 on evenings and 4 on night shift. There was an increase in our customer sales demand, which necessitated the use of free capacity on the night shift, which resulted in the need to move two technicians from day shift to night shift to cover that demand.

Mr PK, Production Manager (maintenance) met with the group of maintenance technicians on the 29th August 2022 and advised them of the business requirements and sought volunteers to transfer to the night shift in the first instance, unfortunately there were no volunteers. Consequently, it was necessary to identify who needed to transfer/change.

As is part of the business operations set up, when there is a rebalancing of shifts, where there is a requirement to move individuals from their current shift to a different shift, for example from day shift to evening / night shift the basis of this selection is that it is based on the least senior person within the position who needs to move.  Two maintenance technicians on day shift were impacted at the time with the Worker being the least senior person on day shift.  

On Thursday 20th October 2022, Mr PK met with the Worker and informed him of the requirement for him to change shift, from his current day shift to either the evening work shift schedule or the night work shift schedule providing notice before the change would take effect. He was informed that the requirement for him to change to one of those shift schedules was necessary because of the increase in customer demands. The transfer date communicated was Monday 21st November 2022, ensuring reasonable notice before the change of shift would take effect and he was informed that it was based on the seniority of his position as a maintenance technician, compared with his other colleagues.

The details of the meeting on the 20th October were confirmed in writing to the Worker on the 21st October, confirming the above shift change requirement, which also included the following: It is an expectation, as set out in your contract of employment, that; “You will be required to be completely flexible in this position and must be prepared to undertake such other work as may be assigned to you by the Company from time to time, on any shift as may be assigned”.    Furthermore, the Worker was asked to confirm which shift schedule either the evening or night shift work schedules he would choose by Friday 28th October 2022 so that the work rosters could be updated accordingly. As the Worker was more senior to his maintenance technician colleagues on evening shift, he could choose with either shift.

The Worker along with his other colleague who was impacted by the shift rebalance changes at the time raised a grievance on having to move from their regular day shift to either evening or night shift work schedules. The grievance in line with the company procedures was heard by Mr. PK.

The Worker attended two grievance meetings on the 1st November and 10th November 2022. The Worker was represented by the Chair  of the site SIPTU Union Committee.  The main points to the grievances were as follows:

The Worker claimed that he was not the least senior person on day shift as there were other colleagues in the injection moulding technicians group and friction stir welding technicians group who were less senior to him on day shift.

At these meetings, the union representative referenced an LRC document referring to skills and the selection of employees for compulsory redundancy.  That document, linked to compulsory redundancies, was not seen as relevant to the grievance being heard.

Mr. PK advised the Worker and his representative that the injection moulding technicians group and friction stir welding technicians were separate from the maintenance technicians group on the basis of skills and training required.  The requirement for the change to either the evening or night shift work schedules was necessary because of business needs / increase in customer demands and confirmed that the transfer was based on a person’s seniority in the position of maintenance technician currently on day shift. The Worker’s assertion that there were other colleagues less senior to him was not valid. The Worker was the least senior within the maintenance technician group on day shift.

At a meeting of the 1st November 2022 the Worker requested that the transfer date of 21st November 2022 be deferred to the 3rd January 2023 due to the notice given. Acknowledging that the notice provided was reasonable, it did not, according to the Worker, provide sufficient time to adjust to a different shift. Mr. PK  advised the Worker at the meeting of 10th November 2022 that the Company would accommodate such a request, to demonstrate reasonableness.

As the Worker was the least senior in the position, the grievance was not upheld and was subsequently appealed to the next stage in the company’s grievance process and this was conducted by Mr .JQ , Production Manager on the 1st December and 08th December 2022 respectively.

The Worker attended both meetings the Workers Trade internal Union representative. 

 At these grievance meetings, at the next stage of company’s grievance process/procedure the Worker stated that:

He believed he was not the least senior in the position of maintenance technician in the production area, as he became a maintenance technician in 1996.

There was 13 maintenance technicians on day shift at this time, which included injection moulding technicians group and friction stir welding technicians group.  The union representative referenced an LRC document referring to skills and the selection of employees for compulsory redundancy.  

 Mr. JQ  having considered the grievance that had been raised, responded to the Worker on the 8th December 2022 and confirmed that he had undertaken a review of the need for shift transfers within the maintenance technician group: He confirmed the following;

Due to in increased customer demands, there was a business requirement for the shift transfer, there was a need to rebalance the shifts and as such confirmed that the transfers are based on seniority in the position and would commence on January the 3rd 2023.

With reference to the statement that the Worker was in the position of a maintenance technician from June 1996, thus making him more senior to other colleagues on day shift within the maintenance technician group, this is factually not correct. The Worker returned to the position of a production operator on the 25th March 1997. Subsequently he took up the position of maintenance technician on the 28th February 2000 which is deemed his start date in the position.

It was confirmed that the LRC document referring to skills and the selection of employees for compulsory redundancy was not applicable to this grievance.

In response to the statement that there is no difference between the maintenance technician injection moulding, electronic production and the manufacturing technician, Mr. JQ stated that there is a difference between these technical groups, and whilst salary and terms and conditions are commensurate, there are significant differences in skill set, competencies and the training required that do not support Worker’s grievance. 

Whilst the Worker confirmed that he would move to the evening shift effective from the 3rd January 2023, on the 22nd December 2022 he asked for a deferral to the transfer, which the company acceded to until the 16th January 2022. As the Worker had chosen to move to evening shift, it was therefore necessary to transfer a maintenance technician from evening to night shift.

As a result of the outcome of the grievance, it was appealed to the next stage and this was conducted by Ms. MK , Personnel Officer.  A meeting was arranged for the 21st December 2022 and the Worker attended with his union representative. The Worker again raised the same points that had been raised at the previous two meetings.  No new or additional details were provided when the grievance was being heard/considered.

The Personnel Officer confirmed that since the meeting of 21st December 2022, Production had undertaken a comprehensive review of the need for shift transfers having regard for any changes in business requirements and confirmed his transfer to evening shift was based on business needs. The company decision was not to uphold the grievance that was raised.

There was no further correspondence until the Employer received the Worker’s complaint from the WRC, which had been lodged on the 22nd August 2023. 

It is essential for the effective running of the business that the Employer has the right to review business efficiencies and to make changes accordingly when business needs necessitate changes. 

The business review of the maintenance technicians shifts is a normal part of the company’s operations and the result was that a rebalance was required due to the business demands and sales plans at the time.  

It is custom and practice in the Employer’s business that people transfers are based on seniority within the position and is accepted by the union.

Based on the skills set and competencies between the various technical groups, it is not straightforward to simply move from one group to another as certain groups take a number of years to train into. Any possible amalgamation of each group of technicians in to one group for the purpose of identifying who would be required to move when balancing people across shifts would require a significant amount of time to complete on the job training ranging from one to three years. Based on historical experience it takes three years for maintenance technicians in production to train for example into injection moulding due to the required training program on Polymer Processing. Several years of training would be required for injection moulding technicians to train into and become proficient as a maintenance technician in production due to the range and technical diversity of the equipment they would be expected to work on. Bespoke training would be required, over a long time frame, before the necessary level of proficiency would be achieved that would permit a trained technician to work on equipment.

Additionally, a manufacturing technician has a different skills set and competencies. It takes between 9 months to 12 months of training for a person to become capable of undertaking the tasks of the manufacturing technician competently. The maintenance technician would have had to remain in the role to train any new person, which would have resulted in the maintenance technician having limited time to support production, apart from the trainings costs involved and any overtime that would be required to enable the training technician to train the trainee. This would have undermined the need to transfer maintenance technicians with effect from January 2023. Essentially, faced with the prospect of having injection moulding technicians having to train up for a period of between 2 to 3 years, with a manufacturing technician having to training for between 9 and 12 months, the business justification is clear was such that they could not wait up to two to 3 years for someone to train up and acquire a level of competency before being able to work autonomously on shift.

The Worker has been working on the evening shift now for twelve months and it would have an untenable effect on any further moves should it be found that the Worker should be moved back to his original shift.  The Worker did not have seniority within the maintenance technician group as whilst he had been seeking to use his original start date as a maintenance technician as 25th June 1996, he had transferred to a production operator role on the 25th March 1997 within the organisation. His actual new date from when he was promoted to a maintenance technician role was the 28th February 2000.  Accordingly, the Company’s decision to transfer our colleague, the Worker, in line with custom and practice that is followed by all employees was and remains justified. 

 The Employer would strongly state that there is no basis to the claim by the Worker.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.  It was not disputed that the Employer did have the right to move the Worker between shifts based on his contract of employment.

The first issue to consider is the Workers start date as Technician. The Worker Representative contested that the Worker start date should be his commencement date in the role.  It is only logical and fair that the Workers start date for consideration for seniority for shift transfer is the date he was appointed to his Technician position, 28th February 2000 and not his employment start date. I do not intend to infer any conclusion, either way, where there to be any future compulsory redundancy situation by this conclusion as this is subject to a separate protocol.

The second issue for consideration is the selection of the Worker to change shifts based on his service and skill requirement. The protocol agreed only deals with compulsory redundancy and therefore is not the relevant selection process in these circumstances. While I accept that the Worker Representative challenged the business requirement for the shift change this is not an issue that was fully addressed at the Hearing and I must operate on the basis that the business need existed and was not manufactured for some alternative reason by the Employer. At the Hearing the Worker Representative made out the case that the Technician positions were flexible and interchangeable and set out the Workers skill set, training and education. and contested the Employer argument about the time required to train up the Worker into any required skills not possessed by the Worker.  The Employer accepted that the Technician positions were the same grade and technically interchangeable but argued that all Technician positions were not the same skill set and some had different roles to others. The Employer stated that the Manufacturing and Maintenance Technician roles required about 12 months training and some involved specialised friction stir welding and there were very different skill sets involved. The Employer stated that the business needs decision at the time was not related to a redundancy situation and the redundancy protocol did not apply at this time. They advised other colleagues of the Worker had to move shifts. The Worker Representative argued that no analysis of the business need had been provided by the Employer at the time or since and disputed that a years training would be required for the Worker to be retrained. The Employer stated that machines had changed since the Worker was trained and other staff have received the technical skill training and argued it would take the Worker 12 to 18 months to achieve the welding aluminium skill set required for the new part manufacture/maintenance and that the Worker declined the opportunity to receive this training in Germany when it was offered..

My conclusion from the submissions is that the Employer evaluated the seniority and skill sets of the appropriate Technicians and decided fairly, based on the combination of service and skill set that the transfer of the Worker to another shift was a reasonable outcome. While the Technician positions may be technically interchangeable, in practice sometimes they are not and certain Technicians acquire very specialist experience in certain areas over time or due to their background and or training. I am particularly swayed to this conclusion by the submission at the Hearing put forward by the Employers manufacturing/training representative outlining the skill set and training required to enable the Worker to support the new part manufacture which would take a considerable period of time to achieve. The Employer stated that the Worker was primarily selected for a shift change, as allowed for in his contract, on less senior service to other Technicians.  I was also very conscious that no alternative was put forward as the appropriate person with less service instead of the Worker to make the shift change.

I recommend the Worker accept the decision of the Employer. I recommend in favour of the Employer.

Trade Dispute