Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88253 Case Number: LCR11915 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MESSRS PLASTRONIX LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 300 workers for an increase in shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the premium for the 4-12 evening shift in
the two and three shift cycle be amended from 16.6% to 18%.
The Court does not recommend any amendment to other shift premium
payments.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88253 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11915
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MESSRS PLASTRONIX LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 300 workers for
an increase in shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of precision
injection mouldings with a high quality cosmetic finish. The
claim for an increase in shift premium was first raised by the
Union under the 26th wage round where, as part of a package
agreement, it was agreed that "the Union are not precluded from
raising the issue of shift premium after July, 1987." The
existing shift premium is as follows:-
8 am - 4 pm : 16.6% - 5 day rotational shifts
4 pm - 12 pm : 16.6% - 5 day rotational shifts
12 pm - 8 am : 20% - 5 day rotational shifts
8 am - 8 pm : 33.33% - 7 day continuous shifts
8 pm - 8 am : 33.33% - 7 day continuous shifts
On 21st July, 1987, the Union lodged a claim for a 2.5% increase
on each of the shift premiums. The claim was rejected by the
Company on the basis of the implications that a further increase
in labour costs would have an competitiveness. On 11th September,
1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. At a conciliation conference on 3rd November, 1987,
the Union revised its claim upwards to one of 20% for the first
two shifts, 25% for the night shift and 40% for the two 12 hour
shifts. As no agreement was possible the matter was referred on
24th March, 1987, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 26th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The reason for the claim is to try and bring the workers'
rates into line with industry in general. The workers' basic
rate of £131 is low for manufacturing industry, and coupled
with the existing shift rates, the combined wage for a shift
worker is out of line with industry.
2. The Labour Court would not be creating a precedent in
recommending concession of the claim. The Court has in the
past made favourable recommendations for workers in similar
circumstances (details provided to the Court).
3. The Company has the advantage of flexibility between
shifts, both in transferring workers from one shift to another
and re-arranging shifts in line with production demands, one
which the Company has utilised on numerous occasions.
4. Whilst the Union accepted in 1986, that an increase in
shift premiums on top of the wage round increases could
possibly place a financial burden on the Company, the same
argument cannot be sustained at this point in time. The
Programme for National Recovery which has been agreed between
the Company and Union will only increase the basic rate by £8
between now and 31st December, 1990. It cannot be argued that
concession of the claim would place an unnecessary financial
burden on the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since its inception the Company has continually had to
invest further in the operation in order to ensure its long
term viability and prosperity. There has been no return on
this investment in the short term. The market in which the
Company operates has always been highly competitive. To make
matters worse 3 new Japanese companies in direct competition
have set up operations in Britain. These companies have
already won a number of projects previously scheduled with the
Company.
2. The Company's labour costs, as a portion of total
manufacturing costs, are high due to the nature of the
business and the requirement for high labour content. An
increase in shift premiums would obviously have a
corresponding knock-on increase in labour costs. Further cost
increases will obviously affect the Company's ability to
compete successfully.
3. The current shift premiums in operation are fair and
reasonable and in line, having regard to the stage of the
Company's development, the competitive nature of its market
and premiums applicable in comparable situations within
industry generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the premium for the 4-12 evening shift in
the two and three shift cycle be amended from 16.6% to 18%.
The Court does not recommend any amendment to other shift premium
payments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
24th June, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.