Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88300 Case Number: LCR11945 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED - and - THE BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one worker in the processing department, for the payment of shift rate.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court is of the
opinion that the claim by the worker concerned is not sustainable
and does not therefore recommend its concession.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88300 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11945
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED
and
THE BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one worker in the processing department,
for the payment of shift rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant joined the Company in 1977 and worked in various
jobs, alternating between shift and day work. In 1980 he left the
Company to take up other employment. In 1981 he resumed
employment with the Company as a day worker. In the intervening
period the Company had carried out a re-organisation which had led
to a major reduction in shift work. The Company was anxious to
put employees on day work where possible and a buy-out option was
agreed. In practice, most female employees agreed to a buy-out of
their shift premium and became day workers (some work a shift
pattern and receive a shift premium of 18.75% while on shift).
However, all male employees opted to retain their shift allowance
and now work either permanent early shifts in the process area or
alternating early and late shifts in the bakehouse. The claimant,
as a day worker, does not receive a shift premium. He is the
only male worker not to receive this payment and the Union lodged
a claim to have it conceded to him. This was rejected by the
Company and following the failure of local level discussions the
Union referred the matter to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on the 24th March, 1988. No progress was made at a
conciliation conference on the 18th April and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 16th June, 1988 (earliest suitable
date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. With the exception of the claimant, all the other male
workers in the processing department receive a shift
differential rate of pay. Furthermore, the claimant
substitutes for these workers for purposes of holidays,
sickness, meal breaks etc. He is essentially part of a team
but does not receive the same rate of pay that the other
workers enjoy.
2. At conciliation, the Company made an offer that the
claimant would be given the next available position in the
process area with a permanent early shift or else a position
in the bakehouse on alternating shift. The latter is not
acceptable to the claimant and the former is not likely to
arise for a further two years.
3. Contrary to the Company's argument, concession of this
claim will not lead to repercussive claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company employs 398 hourly paid workers on days and
272 employees on shift. Shift premium is paid in recognition
of the social penalty associated with alternating shift
working. The claimant was employed explicitly as a day worker
and he enjoys the full range of appropriate benefits.
2. There is no case for payment of shift premium to the
claimant either in the terms on which he was employed or his
operating practice, which is that of a day worker.
3. The claimant rejected an offer from Management of a future
transfer to the bakehouse as a means of achieving a shift
premium.
4. Concession of this claim would inevitably bring a similar
demand from the 398 hourly paid workers on days and be viewed
as a form of pay increase by all other employee groups.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made, the Court is of the
opinion that the claim by the worker concerned is not sustainable
and does not therefore recommend its concession.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
13th July, 1988. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.