LCR22431

1. Introduction Of 4 Shift 24/7 Working

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 24 May 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1 July 2021.


UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. Current House Agreement does not mandate 24/7 working but rather 4 shift alone. It had been agreed any introduction of 24/7 was only to be through consultation with workers/union.

2. There would be a negative effect on workers’ work life balance. To change the shifts, without an increase to annual leave, would be punitive.

3. Any change to 24/7 working should involve a Lead in Bonus and a shift pay of 35% in line with other sites in the industry on similar patterns.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. From employer’s initial takeover of site, establishing 24/7 working has always been intended and that is started in the workers’ contracts.

2. The site is not meeting the increased demands placed on it. 24/7 working is the only way to reach capacity. Not doing so could lead to stock shortages of important medical supplies and possibly lead to a closure of the site.

3. The change to 24/7 working would be a positive for the site, leading to new jobs, increased longevity for the site and would not cause any loss of earnings.

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue in dispute between the parties concerns the Employer’s proposal to move the remaining staff in this category of Worker’s to a 24/7 shift cycle. This cycle already exists and is worked by approximately 70% of the Connect members on the site.

One of the main issues in dispute is Management’s proposal to roster public holidays throughout the year. The Employer submitted that they had gone through an extensive consultation process. It was their submission that there are a number of drivers underpinning the need to move to a 24/7 roster. The key driver is the need to increase capacity to avoid work being diverted to other sites within the Amgen network. Global demand for their product is growing so there is a requirement for extra manufacturing capacity. It is the Employer’s submission that the only viable option is to increase capacity in order to meet demand. They have already outsourced work to the fullest extent possible. The only remaining option is to have everyone on a 24/7 shift. All Connect workers have a liability in their contract for a four -cycle shift pattern. A key element of the original management proposal is that the plant will be operational on all public holidays including Christmas day. The current arrangement where Workers volunteer to man shifts on bank holidays will no longer be possible and public holidays will become part of the roster. The Employer commenced a formal process of discussions around 24/7 shift working in September 2020. They held regular meetings with the Workers and also had focus group sessions. It is the Employer’s submission that they have moved considerably in terms of meeting Connect’s request to compensate for the move to 24/7 working. It is the Employer’s submission that the main issues outstanding between the parties are i) un-rostered Christmas shutdown period, ii) increased annual leave entitlements and iii) a share purchase plan, along with some housekeeping issues such as extension to opening times of the gym and enhanced canteen services. The Employer submitted that there is an urgency to this issue as they are already in a position where demand for their products exceed their capacity and that it is imperative that the 24/7 work pattern is in place by 1^st September 2021 at the latest.

The Union submitted that, notwithstanding the contractual provision, that provides for working four cycle shifts the custom and practise has been that Christmas work was voluntary. The Union could see no practical reason why that could not continue going forward. It is the Union’s submission that in principle it did not object to the 24/7 working arrangement. It is the Unions position that they have a number of issues that they believe need to be resolved as part of this process. Currently there are a group of workers who have red circled annual leave, the Union are seeking to have all their members moved to that higher annual leave entitlement. It is the Unions submission that moving staff to 24/7 will impact on them and their families and they believe this impact could be mitigated by increasing the annual leave entitlement. The Union also sought additional recognition for service, and an increase in the shift payment. It is the Union’s submission that the norm in the industry for 24/7 four shift cycle is 35% and they are looking for the existing premium to be increased to that rate. The Connect workers previously opted out of the Employer’s Individual Assessment scheme and they are now seeking that the Employer facilitate a separate share purchase scheme for the craft group. The Union set out a list of other issues including gym access, enhanced Medical and enhanced canteen services. The Union in their submission to Court identified the following as the key issues for them: i) longstanding custom and practice in respect of public holidays/ Christmas working, ii) a requirement to increase the annual leave entitlement, iii) a share scheme for craft workers and iv) shift premium and lead in bonus.

Discussion.

The Court notes that the red circled annual leave was part of an LRC agreement dated 25^th July 2013. The agreement not only covers the red circled workers it also goes on to say that all other non-red circled employees will be entitled to 184 hours per year regardless of what shift pattern is worked. If the Court was to revisit the section in that agreement dealing with annual leave the Court would have to look at the section as a whole including the red circled agreement. The Union informed the Court that it did not want the Court to disturb the red circled arrangement. The Court notes that the Employer in their submission, are offering to increase the annual leave from 184 hours per year to 212 hours per year. The Court recommends that the Workers accept this as addressing their claim for an increase in annual leave. As the Court is recommending acceptance of the proposed increase to annual leave the Court at this time is not making a recommendation in respect of the Union’s claim for additional service leave. The Employer submitted in respect of the public holidays and Christmas rostering that in the past the plant had not been fully operational on those days and therefore the voluntary attendance worked. However, it is now proposed that the plant will be operational 24/7. The Court notes that with the exception of Utilities the Employer is now proposing a seven-shift closure at Christmas and that they have conceded the Union’s claim for a 35% shift payment. In respect of Utilities wo are rostered and work 25^th and 26^th December, the Employer is proposing an additional 12 hours for each shift worked on the 25^th and 26^th December to be worked up as time in lieu and taken off in line with normal procedures. The Court noting that one of the key drivers for this change is the need to meet the demand and ensure work is not diverted to other plants within the group recommends acceptance of the Employer’s final proposal as set out above to include the seven-shift closure at Christmas and the 35% shift payment.

In respect of the Unions claim for a share scheme for craft workers, the Court understands that there have been some unsuccessful engagements on this issue between the parties. It appears to the Court from the Union’s submission that the Union are seeking a scheme that would provide for group KPI’s but individual bonuses. The Union submitted that in its view such a scheme would be compatible with Revenue requirements. While the Union indicated that they were aware of other companies that ran such a scheme no details of those schemes were provided. It was not clear to the Court whether the schemes in the other companies applied to all their staff or just one group within the Company as was being proposed in this case. In response to a question from the Court the Union confirmed that they had not done a costing in respect of what it would cost to introduce and maintain such a scheme. Having considered the submissions on this issue the Court does not believe that it has been provided with sufficient information to make a recommendation on this issue. The Court notes the Employer’s stated intention to extend the opening times for the gym and the canteen. The other housekeeping issues that the Union raised should be processed through the normal internal procedures. The final element that the Court considered was the Union’s claim for a lead in bonus. As the Worker’s in this case already have a contractual liability and, in most cases already work a 24/7 four shift cycle the Court does not believe that a lead in bonus is appropriate. However, the Court recommends that on the implementation of the changes set out above commencing in September 2021 the Connect members, excluding the members who have the red circled annual leave, should be paid €1,000 gross and then six months after the first payment a second payment of €1,000 should be paid. This payment to be in settlement of the issues set out above.

The Court recommends that the 24/7 shift roster incorporating the seven-shift closure for the relevant Workers at Christmas as set out above should be implemented from 1^st September 2021. The Employer should increase the annual leave entitlement to 212 hours and the shift premium rate to 35% at that point. The Connect members, excluding the members who have the red circled annual leave arrangement, should be paid €1,000 gross on implementation of this recommendation and then six months after the first payment a second payment of €1,000 should be paid.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CN	______________________
23 July 2021	Deputy Chairman