FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PENAUILLE SERVISAIR LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Change of Rosters
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Penauille Servisair Ltd in relation to Rostering. The Company position is that due to the changing needs of the business, it is necessary to change shift patterns for workers employed in the Company's ramp section. The Company is seeking a 4a.m. start where necessary. The Company also contends that the Company/Union Agreement of 1997 is out of date and does not reflect current business needs.
The Union's position is that the Company/Union Agreement states that there will be no requirement to work earlier than 5a.m. The Union also contends that updating the Agreement will resolve the current dispute.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 12th July, 2007 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Company/Union Agreement provides that there will not be a requirement to work earlier than 5a.m.
2 It is unacceptable that management threaten to unilaterally withdraw from the Agreement.
3 This issue can be resolved through negotiating and updating the Agreement to take the busineess needs and the needs of the workers into consideration.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is operating in an increasingly competitive market. If it is to remain competitive it must change its shift patterns to match the needs of its clients.
2 If the Company cannot change its rosteres, it will inevitably lead to a loss of business and subsequent job losses.
3 The 4 a.m. start of shift is currently covered on a voluntary overtime basis. This means that overtime premia as well as shift allowane is paid. The Company cannot continue to sustain the additional costs involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Company’s need to change early morning rosters. The Union objected to the changes sought on the basis that they contravened the Company/Union Agreement of 1997.
The Company told the Court that the 1997 Agreement is seriously out of date and needs to be amended to ensure compatibility with the competitive needs of the business which are constantly evolving in today’s climate. It stated that attempts over the past two years have failed to achieve this objective.
The Union told the Court that it too was anxious to complete the process of updating the Agreement and expressed the view that updating the Agreement was the best means of resolving the current dispute.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court recommends that the Company should suspend the threat of withdrawing from the Company/Union Agreement to enable, as a matter of urgency, negotiations to take place to complete the process of amending and updating the 1997 Agreement, and in particular the roster time changes.
The Court recommends that an independent facilitator, nominated by the Court if necessary, should be appointed to assist this process which should be completed within one month of the date of this Recommendation. If there are any residual issues these may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.