Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86691 Case Number: LCR10914 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SPS HIGHLIFE - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an increase in night shift premium.
Recommendation:
7. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court does not
find it possible to recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
14th January, 1987 --------------------
T O'M/U.S. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86691 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10914
CC86982 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10914
Parties: S.P.S. HIGHLIFE
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for an increase in night shift premium.
Background:
2. This claim concerns fifty five general and craft workers who
are employed on permanent night work by the Company. The workers
operate on ten hour shifts from 10.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. on four
nights from Monday to Friday each week. The Company pays the
workers a 30% shift premium.
3. The 25th wage round agreement expired in the Company on 31st
December, 1985. As part of the 26th wage round claim the Unions
claimed that the shift premium should be increased to thirty three
and a third percent. The other items of the wage round were
settled but no agreement was reached about the shift premium.
4. On 9th June, 1986 the question of an increase in the shift
premium was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 28th August, 1986.
However, no agreement was reached and on 1st September, 1986 the
case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 12th November,
1986 in Limerick.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The Unions have pursued this claim unsuccessfully for a
number of years. It is becoming more contentious each
year.
(ii) Companies in the region which operate on a ten hour
four shift basis pay a shift premium of thirty three
and a third percent.
(iii) The Unions' claim specifically relates to the workers
who operate the ten hour four shift system. There
would not be any consequential claims arising from
concession of this claim.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The present shift premium is fair and reasonable and
compares favourably with premia paid by Companies
operating comparable shift patterns. It is clear that
the Company's night shift rates and conditions are
favourable to the workers as over half of the workers
on night work are operating on a voluntary basis.
(b) There is no company in the region paying above 30% for
a ten hour four shift pattern. In fact only three
other companies operate this arrangement.
(c) The Company cannot afford the cost of concession of the
claim. The Company's rates have increased faster than
its competitors in recent years.
(d) Concession of the claim would lead to consequential
claims on the Company.
(e) This claim was the subject of a Labour Court
investigation in 1981. The Court recommended rejection
of the claim on that occassion (Labour Court
Recommendation No. 6373 refers). The situation has not
changed since that Recommendation was issued.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court does not
find it possible to recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
14th January, 1987 --------------------
T O'M/U.S. Deputy Chairman