Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8886 Case Number: LCR11746 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WARNER LAMBERT IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of 14 workers for compensation for loss of shift allowance differential, overtime premium and annual leave.
Recommendation:
7. As regards the five employees who worked the 12-hour shift
long-term, the Court considers that the Company's offer in respect
of shift differential (i.e. £350) and overtime differential (i.e.
£250) is fair and reasonable and should be accepted. The Court
recommends however, that the amount of compensation for loss of
annual leave should be increased to £500.
As regards the nine employees who worked 12-hour shift for
approximately eighteen months, the Court recommends that the
Company's offer in relation to loss of shift differential (i.e.
£175) should be accepted. The Court recommends however that the
Company should also offer and the Union accept compensation of £75
per worker for overtime loss and a further £75 for annual leave
loss.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8886 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11746
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WARNER LAMBERT IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 14 workers for compensation for loss of
shift allowance differential, overtime premium and annual leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of chewing gum base
and bulk pharmaceuticals at two plants in the Dublin area and
employs approximately 190 workers. In November, 1985 due to
falling demand for gum base and increased demand for products in
the pharmaceutical plant six 12 hour shift workers were
transferred from the gum base plant to the pharmaceutical plant
and an agreement was reached between the Company and the Union in
relation to manning, shift pattern, premiums, etc. (details
supplied to the Court). The workers concerned continued to work a
12 hour shift and within the plant an 8 hour shift roster also
continued to operate. The Company stated that its objective was
to operate the plant on an 8 hour shift basis by August, 1986.
The Company continued to operate the 8 hour and 12 hour rosters up
to December, 1987 by which time 14 workers were employed on the 12
hour shift, 5 of whom were those originally transferred from the
gum base plant, 7 workers remained on the 8 hour shift cycle. On
4th January, 1988 all workers were put on an 8 hour shift system
(one month's notice of this change was given by the Company in
accordance with the House Agreement). Arising from this the Union
served a claim on the Company in respect of the 14 workers
previously on 12 hour shift for compensation for loss of shift
premium, overtime earnings and annual leave. The claim was for
two and a half times the annual loss as follows:-
Shift premium - £1,773 (£13.64 p.w.)
Overtime - £1,250 (£09.62 p.w.)
Annual Leave - £00875
TOTAL - £3,895 per person.
3. This was unacceptable to the Company which was willing to
negotiate an agreement in respect of those workers who had
originally transferred from the gum plant due to their length of
service on 12 hour shift work. In respect of these workers the
Company made the following offer:-
Shift premium - £350.00 (26 weeks loss)
Overtime - £250.00 (26 weeks loss)
Annual Leave - £350.00 (52 weeks loss)
TOTAL - £950.00 per person.
4. For the other workers the Company made a 'token' offer of £175
each and that in future where a worker as employed on a shift for
less than or equal to 18 months no compensatory claims should be
made. This was unacceptable to the Union and on 11th December,
1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 19th January,
1988 at which agreement could not be reached and on 1st February,
1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 3rd
March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. At the time of the transfer of workers and arising from
the Company's statement that its objective was to operate the
plant on an 8 hour shift basis the Union stated that if and
when the need arose to transfer the 12 hour shift workers to
an 8 hour shift compensation would have to be negotiated (as
per agreement of November, 1985 - details supplied to the
Court).
2. Although the Company stated that it wished to dispense
with 12 hour shifts all of the workers concerned believed,
based on past evidence that they would be required to work the
12 hour roster for the foreseeable future. The Company's
offer based on 26 weeks loss is totally inadequate to
compensate for the significant loss of earnings and conditions
involved. No differentiation in compensation should be made
between long term (workers transferred from gum base plant)
and short term (those already in the pharmaceutical plant and
later transferred to 12 hour shift) shift workers.
3. The Company is achieving considerable savings arising from
the change in shift pattern. The Labour Court in previous
cases has recommended considerably higher compensation (LCR
No's 9466 and 9618 refer). All of the workers concerned have
become used to and dependent upon the level of earnings
arising from working a 12 hour roster the loss of which will
significantly affect their standard of living, they should
therefore receive appropriate compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Five of the workers concerned had worked a 12 hour shift
for a five year period and it was due to this that the Company
made an offer of compensation equal to 26 times the weekly
loss. However the Company considers it unreasonable to
suggest that the other 9 workers who had only worked a 12 hour
roster for a short 18 month period should receive the same
level of compensation. The Company therefore made an offer
equivalent to 13 times the weekly loss which is fair and
reasonable in the circumstances.
2. Within the terms of the House Agreement (clause 4) the
Company is entitled to alter shift arrangements and the Labour
Court in a similar case (LCR No. 9775 refers) rejected a claim
for compensation. All workers were made fully aware in
November, 1985 of the Company's intention to revert to the 8
hour roster and the Company gave notice prior to the transfer
in line with the notice requirements in the House Agreement.
3. Shift premium is paid to compensate workers for the
unsocial hours and inconvenience involved in shift work.
Reversion to an 8 hour shift reduces these elements and any
reduction in earnings is more than adequately compensated for
in the Company's offer. In a similar case the Labour Court
recommended 6 weeks shift payment (LCR No. 10591 refers) and
in another case (LCR No. 6789) the Labour Court upheld the
Company's offer of 26 times the weekly loss.
4. The Union's claim for compensation for lost annual leave,
is distinct from any lost earnings claim and has been
considered on its merits. The Company's offer of one year's
loss is fair and reasonable when one considers that there is
no reduction in the numbers of shifts off per annum.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. As regards the five employees who worked the 12-hour shift
long-term, the Court considers that the Company's offer in respect
of shift differential (i.e. £350) and overtime differential (i.e.
£250) is fair and reasonable and should be accepted. The Court
recommends however, that the amount of compensation for loss of
annual leave should be increased to £500.
As regards the nine employees who worked 12-hour shift for
approximately eighteen months, the Court recommends that the
Company's offer in relation to loss of shift differential (i.e.
£175) should be accepted. The Court recommends however that the
Company should also offer and the Union accept compensation of £75
per worker for overtime loss and a further £75 for annual leave
loss.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
18th March, 1988
U.M./J.C. Deputy Chairman.