Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89505 Case Number: LCR12517 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEXACO (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims by the Union for:- (a) the retention of the three-cycle shift rate at Dublin terminal on behalf of four supervisors, (b) compensation in respect of the introduction of a less favourable shift system for two supervisors at Cork terminal.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
and noting the history of the negotiations is of the view that it
would not be justified in recommending concession of the Union's
claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89505 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12517
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TEXACO (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for:-
(a) the retention of the three-cycle shift rate at Dublin
terminal on behalf of four supervisors,
(b) compensation in respect of the introduction of a less
favourable shift system for two supervisors at Cork
terminal.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a number of terminals at various
locations around the country including Dublin and Cork. During
the latter part of 1987 and in 1988 the Company found itself in a
grave trading position in the Irish market. Serious losses were
being incurred and in order to effect a reduction in the high
costs of distribution the Company in 1988, introduced a Corporate
Recovery Plan. The Plan was accepted by the Unions and staff
subject to the issue of compensation being discussed and agreed.
Amongst the changes which occurred were that the operation of all
deliveries were sub-contracted to a new Company, all the drivers,
some operatives and some supervisors were made redundant. A two
shift working system was introduced in Dublin to replace the three
shift system, and there was a change in shift roster in Cork. The
Union has claimed the retention of the three cycle shift rate
system in Dublin and compensation in respect of the change in the
Cork depot. The Company rejected the Union's claim. Local
discussions failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
8th February, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the 9th
May, 1989 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the
9th May, 1989. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd August, 1989.
Claim (a) - Claim for the retention of the three cycle shift rate
in Dublin.
BACKGROUND:
3. In February, 1989 a two-shift system was introduced to replace
the three shift cycle in operation at the Dublin terminal. The
number of supervisors was reduced to four and they were obliged to
take on additional duties including the provision of shipping
cover and certain laboratory duties. Their shift allowance was
reduced from 22% to 16 2/3% (a loss of #1,500 p.a.). The Union is
claiming the retention of the three cycle shift system. The
Company has rejected the claim and regard the changes as part of
the Corporate Recovery Plan which was accepted by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the Company's rationalisation proposals
there would be substantial changes (details supplied to the
Court). The workers will suffer a more anti social shift
pattern and their shift rate reduced from 22 to 16 2/3% a loss
of #1,500 p.a. They would also suffer a reduction in pension
prospects even though they have contributed for many years at
a higher level.
2. The new two cycle roster means that the workers concerned
now have an earlier start on week 1, they lose the advantage
of the midday start on week 2 and lose the whole day off in
week 3. Coupled with the less favourable shift arrangement
they are now expected to provide cover for shipping and
laboratory, both of which were covered by specialists
heretofore. It would be far more reasonable to leave the
workers with their three shift rate and integrate the shipping
cover into their normal roster. This is the situation
currently obtaining in Irish Shell.
3. Shortly before the rationalisation plans in February, 1989
Management offered to pay a yard supervisor (on day work) the
three shift rate to cover shipping and yet, some weeks later,
refused to extend this facility to those workers who were
being asked to take on shipping duties and who already held
the three shift allowance.
4. All four supervisors have been contributing to the pension
plan at the three shift rate for the past 20 years. Under the
Company's proposals their contributions to a pension based on
a three shift rate is now to be lost to them. This loss
ultimately is approximately #1,000 p.a. Even on the pension
issue alone the workers concerned should be allowed the option
of continuing to contribute to the three shift rate.
5. In return for the additional responsibilities (details
supplied to the Court) and for the loss of pension benefits
already paid for, the workers concerned should be allowed to
retain their three shift rate if needs be on a personal basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Corporate Recovery Plan provided for radical changes
in operating procedures including the elimination of three
cycle shift working throughout the Company and revised job
descriptions for supervisors at Dublin terminal. The
remaining staff in the operating areas experienced significant
and radical changes in their job functions and
responsibilities.
2. The Company made it very clear from the outset of
negotiations that full acceptance of the plan was the minimum
action required from the workforce. A generous and expensive
severance package was negotiated with the Unions and included
compensation for loss of shift earnings. It was also made
clear to the Union that the financial package was conditional
on total acceptance of the plan without variation (including
elimination of the three cycle shift operation, revised work
practices and revised job description). This was acknowledged
as understood by the Union and has been accepted since as
their understanding of the situation.
3. The Corporate Recovery Plan stipulated and it was accepted
by the Union that there was no requirement for a three cycle
shift operation. This is now the accepted norm throughout the
Company, and no employees in any category work three cycle
shift.
4. The additional or revised work practices referred to by
the Union were detailed in the plan as part of the minimum
action required for restructuring. They were accepted by the
Union verbally and in writing.
5. The Company pension plan (details supplied to the Court)
provides for a pension based on pensionable earnings during
the final 12 months service or if greater the best 12
consecutive months within the members final 5 years service.
This means that pension entitlements of the workers concerned
on their last day of 3 cycle shift (31/1/1989) is protected
until 31st January, 1994. Normal wage inflation will ensure
that their pension entitlement at the end of the guarantee
period will not be less than their pension entitlement on the
last day of three cycle shift.
6. The Company has offered generous compensation which has
been accepted by all the other categories involved. The claim
by the Union for retention of three cycle shift goes far
beyond the normal interpretation of compensation. In effect
the claimants are seeking to be paid three cycle shift rate
for a shift they would not be working, that is neither
required or worked anywhere in the Company and was
specifically eliminated in the plan which was agreed to and
accepted by the Union.
Claim (b) - Compensation for change in shift roster at Cork depot:
BACKGROUND:
6. Prior to February, 1989 there were three supervisors at the
depot who worked a rotating two cycle shift as follows:
Early 6.15 to 13.45
Day 9.00 to 17.00
Late 13.30 to 21.00
Following the introduction of the Corporate Recovery Plan one
supervisory post was eliminated and the revised shift was as
follows:
Early 6.15 to 13.45 hours
Late 13.30 to 21.00 hours
The Union is claiming compensation for the loss of the more
favourable roster. The Company has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers concerned feel a sense of grievance at being
transferred from a roster of "early" "days" and "lates" to
early and lates. In one week in every three they will lose
the advantage of the 09.00 - 17.00 shift and will have to
endure eight additional early shifts and eight additional late
shifts each year.
2. The Union proposed that the two shift rate be improved
from its present level of 16 2/3% or else a lump sum
compensatory payment for the change. There are a number of
reputable companies where up to 20% shift rate is available
for two shift working (details supplied to the Court). While
the conditions available to the workers concerned compare
favourably with other companies, the two shift rate is in a
very much lower league.
3. Given the very early start of 6.15 a.m. (most 2 shift
operations start at 8.00 a.m.) it would be all the more
appropriate to improve the shift premium. Other staff in the
Company who moved from three to two cycle shift previously
received a lump sum payment of #4,500 (3 X annual loss). The
Union suggests a similar payment to the two supervisors
concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The elimination of one supervisor at the Cork plant and
the consequent revised shift pattern was specified as part of
the Corporate Recovery Plan, balloted on and accepted by the
Union verbally and in writing. There is no financial loss
involved in the loss of the "day" shift. The Company regard
this claim now as a total breach of the Agreement reached with
the Union.
2. The supervisors at Cork are now working a shift pattern in
line with their colleagues at Limerick and New Ross. The
Company cannot see any justification for compensation over and
above the 2 cycle rate currently paid to the supervisors at
Cork, as is paid to all other supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties
and noting the history of the negotiations is of the view that it
would not be justified in recommending concession of the Union's
claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
21st August, 1989 Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.