LCR16005

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/98/361 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR16005 (CC98/546) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK PLASTICS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Introduction of 4-shift operation.



BACKGROUND:

2. The Company was established in 1969 and manufactures plastic building products for the Irish and UK markets. The dispute concerns the Company's request that 60 of its workers co-operate with the introduction and operation of 4-shift working (14 employees working 12 hours per shift) when it is required. The workers concerned have worked 3 shifts and weekend overtime, but are not willing to work 4 shifts.

The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 29th of July, 1998. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of August, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of October, 1998, in Cork.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. Since the late 1970's, the employees concerned have worked 3-shift rosters, and weekend overtime when requested. In recent years, the Company has demanded that the workers make themselves available most weekends to work overtime. The Company has little regard to the workers' social lives. If the Company had adopted a co-operation approach, as competitors in Cork have done, there would not be a problem.

2. All employees must be given written statements regarding terms and conditions of employment within two months of entering employment. The Company admits that this has not been adhered to. Workers were not told of a 4-shift rota. The current contract of employment dates from 1980.

3. If workers had to do 4-shift work they would suffer a considerable financial loss. Because of the physical and mental stress of the work, a 4-shift rota would not be suitable.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company/Union agreement states that employees shall work a 2, 3 or 4-shift system as required by the Company.

2. The Company will not be able to sustain its level of business if the 4-shift system is not maintained. A 3-shift system which does not have a full complement of workers causes major disruption to production and distribution.

3. A serious problem for the Company has been the poor attendance for weekend overtime. The 4-shift system requires 14 workers per 12-hour shift. Figures show that the actual attendance is much less than the 100% required, resulting in huge production losses.


RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties. It appears to the Court that further discussions should take place between the parties on all options, (including the introduction of 4-cycle shifts) by which the Company's production requirements may be met.

In considering such options, regard should be had to the requirement to implement in full the provisions of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, by the end of 1999.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
9th November, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.