LCR22933

PARTIES:

SUBJECT:

 S26(1) (CAM-100915-23)​ 

BACKGROUND:

 This matter could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 7 November 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 February 2024. 

UNION’S ARGUMENTS: 

1. The Union states their members feel that changes to their work practices are not necessary as hours were always worked up.
2. The Union states that preventative maintenance was always done.
3. The members affected by the proposed changes are asking to be treated the same as other grades and areas who enjoy this flexibility.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS: 

1. The Employer states that it is essential for business that there is a structured scheduled preventative maintenance system in operation. 
2. The scheduling of the additional 12-hour deficit as one shift is clearly set out in the contracts of employment that has been signed and agreed with this group of employees. 
3. It is not realistic for the Company’ business that there can be continuous accommodations, exemptions and discretion exercised that is detrimental to the successful operations of the business. 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. 

The trade dispute before the Court has persisted despite various attempts to find resolution for over 10 years. Essentially, the workers are paid for 39 hours per week and actually work 36 hours each week. Over the course of every four weeks the workers are consequently paid for 12 hours more than they actually work. In accordance with the terms of their contract of employment, they remain liable to work these hours in the planned maintenance of plant. This liability is discharged on a roster basis published each November for the succeeding 12 months when 12-hour shifts to carry out planned maintenance are scheduled. 

The trade union contends that the employer should facilitate flexibility such that a worker should be able to attend late or leave early or not attend at all on a day when their attendance for a 12-hour shift of planned maintenance is scheduled. The employer contends that such a flexibility would impact severely on the execution of planned maintenance on schedule and in a manner that minimises disruption of the production process. 

The employer contends that the present situation, which has persisted for a number of years, is that workers regularly attend late or leave early on a day when they are scheduled for a 12-hour shift for planned maintenance. The trade union contends that the agreed absence policy should not apply to any such occurrences on a scheduled day of planned maintenance. The employer contends that it must apply to workers on these shifts just as it does to all rostered shifts worked by all workers across the site. The Court is clear that the employer does not appear to have initiated any response under the policy in the period since the within dispute arose initially in 2012. 

The Court is aware that the most recent offer by the company to resolve the within trade dispute involves an allocation of a bank of 18 hours to each worker in 2024 and 2025 and the accommodation where possible of individual needs for flexibility at the discretion of the supervisor when the demands of planned maintenance were such as to allow such flexibility on a given shift without disrupting the planned maintenance on the day. 

The Court cannot conclude that the rostering on a twelve-month basis in advance each November of the schedule of planned maintenance shifts is unreasonable. Neither is it unreasonable in the view of the Court that the employer, who has paid for each of the hours that would be worked on planned maintenance, should expect that workers would attend for those shifts as rostered. The Court is similarly unable to conclude that it is unreasonable that the absence policy which applies to all working in the employment should apply to shifts scheduled for planned maintenance. 

In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the trade union should accept the most recent offer of the employer, amended to provide for a bank of 27 hours in its first year of operation, as a reasonable means to resolve this long running dispute. The arrangements set out therein should take effect with effect from 1st July 2024 and, in the meantime, the parties should engage to deal with any transitional issues including the mechanisms necessary to ensure a fair operation of any arrangements to consider individual requests made to the supervisor by individuals for flexibility in respect of particular shifts. 

The Court so recommends. 

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
21 February 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.