Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86745 Case Number: LCR10961 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LTD - and - ASTMS |
(a) Interpretation of an Agreement of 1st April, 1978. (b) Remuneration for 7 days working.
Recommendation:
8. Clarification of 1978 Agreement
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the opinion that the Agreement provided for compensation only
to the individuals named therein and does not apply to subsequent
appointees who applied for the jobs in full knowledge of the
conditions applying.
Remuneration for 7 day working
The Court does not recommend concession of the changes sought by
the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86745 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10961
CC86134 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10961
Parties: IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED
and
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS
Subject:
1. (a) Interpretation of an Agreement of 1st April, 1978.
(b) Remuneration for 7 days working.
Background: (a) Interpretation of 1978 Agreement:
2. In July, 1978 an agreement was reached between the Company and
the Association at a conciliation conference whereby compensation
would be paid to salaried staff whose supervisory responsibilities
require that their normal working weekly hours are in excess of
35. Compensation was in the form of 1.50 increments for those
functions which required working a 40 hour week and on a pro-rata
basis between 35 hours and 40 hours. The workers to whom
compensation was paid were named in a letter dated 1st August,
1978 from the Company to the Association confirming the agreement.
Subsequently five supervisors were appointed internally. The
Association claimed compensation along the lines of the 1978
agreement in respect of these workers. The claim was rejected by
the Company and the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 26th February, 1986. Conciliation
conferences were held on 9th April, 1986 and 7th May, 1986. As no
agreement could be reached both parties requested the issue be
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on 19th September, 1986. A Labour Court hearing was held in Cork
on 17th December, 1986, a date suitable to both parties.
Association's arguments:
3. (a) The salary scales reflect a 35 hour working week. All
positions in excess of 35 hours should be rewarded as
per the 1978 Agreement.
(b) The workers concerned are now performing jobs of the
very same nature as those who were compensated under
the 1978 agreement.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) There was no agreement other than to pay the salary
increase to those workers named in the letter dated 1st
August, 1978.
(ii) Since 1979 there is a recognised practice appertaining
to individuals in relation to working hours in excess
of 35 and part of this is that any staff who
successfully apply for such jobs through the normal
advertised channels do not qualify for any special
payment in relation to the hours of work attaching to
the particular job. In the vast majority of cases
these are promotions which provide immediate salary
increases, a better salary scale and better fringe
benefits. Again the notices advertising such positions
clearly show the 40 hour normal working requirement.
Background:
5. (b) Remuneration for 7 day working.
When shift work commenced in the Company in 1975, a 5 day, 3 shift
system covered by salaried supervisors was operated. This system
worked with each of these three supervisors covering 8 hour shifts
for 5 days. A fourth supervisor worked a normal 5 day week doing
desk/office duties for which he was not paid shift. This day job
was rotated among all 4 supervisors.
Because of increased demand 7 day continuous shift working was
introduced in August, 1979. Pending the outcome of negotiations
between Association and the Company on supervisory manning levels
an interim agreement was operated by 5 supervisors. During this
period, which lasted from August, 1979 until January, 1981, the
supervisors operated a 5 week cycle system. This resulted in a
requirement to work a cycle of four weeks of shift work, the fifth
week involved attending to duties on a normal 9 - 5 job. The
agreement specified a shift premium of 37.5%, payment of change
over allowance, and payment of a special two extra hours over 40
hours at treble time.
On 10th December, 1979, agreement was reached governing conditions
for supervisory cover for 7 day operation of the distillery
(details of this agreement supplied to the Court). One extra
supervisor was employed bringing the total production supervisory
staff to 6. In actual fact, due to a delay in the completion of
the training programme for the new supervisors and the subsequent
death and replacement of the production manager by one of the
existing shift supervisors, payment under this 6 man rota was
never implemented.
Due to market forces the Company introduced short time working in
the distillery area for a prolonged period i.e. from February,
1981 until August, 1985. During this time a special arrangement
was made by the Company with the shift supervisors. The special
arrangement reduced the hours worked but still provided for the
retention of the shift premium and change over allowance. In
August, 1985, the Company resumed 7 day operations on an interim
basis for two years, and the shift pay arrangements which were
first introduced in August, 1979 were applied for the interim
period. The shift supervisors then sought to negotiate the
payment of all overtime based on a 35 hour week which the Company
rejected. As no agreement could be reached, as with the claim for
interpretation of the 1978 agreement, the matter was the subject
of a Labour Court hearing held in Cork on 17th December, 1986.
Association's arguments:
6. (a) The 35 hour week rate has been part of the workers
pay structure for the past four and a half years, while
the distillery was on 5 day week operation.
(b) The agreement now proposed by the Company was only an
interim agreement which was set up to cover a short
period of time.
(c) The difference between the Company's proposals and what
the workers had been paid for the previous 4.50 years
would amount to a reduction of 13% in the rate per hour
for the job.
(d) The 6 man agreement dating from 1979 is fair and
practical and should be implemented.
Company's arguments:
7. (i) Compensation was paid to the established workers in
1979 for agreement to work 7 days.
(ii) Minimum changes in shift payments were agreed with the
workers when short time working had to be introduced in
1981.
(iii) The present shift salary arrangements applicable to the
workers concerned are exceptional by any standards
(details supplied to the Court).
(iv) Given the shift rota which the workers operate averages
40.6 hours per week there cannot be any justification
for basing overtime on a 35 hour week.
(v) Concession of the claim would inevitably lead to a
series of spin off claims from weekly paid operatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Clarification of 1978 Agreement
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
of the opinion that the Agreement provided for compensation only
to the individuals named therein and does not apply to subsequent
appointees who applied for the jobs in full knowledge of the
conditions applying.
Remuneration for 7 day working
The Court does not recommend concession of the changes sought by
the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
3rd February, 1987.
M.D./J.C.