Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88576 Case Number: LCR12079 Section / Act: S67 Parties: C. B. PACKAGING LIMITED - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 5 workers for compensation for loss of a shift differential.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that Clause 3 of the Agreement between
the Company and the Union applies in the circumstances of this
case and accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88576 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12079
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: C. B. PACKAGING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 5 workers for compensation for
loss of a shift differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. In February, 1988, the Company transferred the 5 workers
concerned from shift to day work. This led to a reduction of
approximately #42.00 per week in their earnings as a result of the
shift rate being taken from them. As the workers concerned were
employed as shift workers and have been continuously operating
shift over a period of from 23 to 28 years, the Union claimed
compensation based on 3 times the annual loss. This was rejected
by the Company who offered the terms of the Company/Union
Agreement which provided for a maximum payment of 26 weeks
phase-out, equating to 13 weeks of the actual shift rate. These
terms had also been endorsed by the Labour Court for other workers
in LCR9611 of 11th March, 1985. As no agreement could be achieved
at local level, the dispute was referred on 26th May, 1988, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 19th July, 1988, and
on 21st July, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
matter on 29th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The circumstances of this case are totally different to
those placed before the Court in March, 1985. The Union
acknowledges that compensation for coming off shift is covered
by the Agreement, but this was to cover a situation where
workers came off shift for a number of years and then reverted
back to shift. There was a practice in the Company whereby
people could be on shift for four or five years, came off it
for a year or two and go back on it again.
2. In this case the 5 workers were employed continuously on
shift work, bar for a short period in 1987, for up to 28
years. It is unfair that in one case workers could receive
quite a number of weeks compensation over a 28 year period
because they had been on and off shift whereas the 5 workers
concerned are told that at the end of 28 years continuous
shift they will only get the equivalent of 13 weeks shift pay.
3. The 5 workers have pitched their standard of living to
their normal weekly wage inclusive of the shift differential.
They now find themselves in the position of having #42.00 less
per week.
4. With the reversion to day work the Company demanded a 50%
increase in production to make up for the loss of the shift.
The Company has also reduced the costs of the printing
department by 50%, achieved by redundancies. It can therefore
be seen that the workers have made a substantial contribution
to the Company. Since the Company have said that shift work
will not be re-introduced in the department, the Union
believes that a compensation settlement of three times the
annual loss is fair and reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The decision to introduce day work was dictated by market
circumstances. Increased competition and declining orders had
led to considerable excess capacity in the Company. The
Company could not continue to operate on an ongoing basis,
carrying excess capacity and remain viable.
2. The appropriate clauses in the Agreement (Appendix 1)
clearly outline the agreed notification and compensation to be
applied where employees are transferred from shift work to day
work. The Company adhered fully to the agreed clauses.
3. The Union was party to a joint referral of the same issue
to the Labour Court in March, 1985. The Court did not
recommend concession of the Union's claim and stated that
paragraph 14(3) of the Company/Union Agreement for the paper
division (equivalent to paragraph 18(3) of the print division)
applies in this type of situation.
4. 4. Any deviation from the existing Agreement would render the
latter meaningless and would have serious implications for a
number of other employees, both past and present, who accepted
the terms of the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that Clause 3 of the Agreement between
the Company and the Union applies in the circumstances of this
case and accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___21st___October,___1988. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman
APPENDIX 1
EXTRACT FROM AGREEMENT FOR PAINTING DEPARTMENT
SHIFT WORK:
1. It shall be a condition of employment that all employees be
prepared to work shift when required. A shift differential of 25%
is paid to two shift working.
2. Notice of transfer from:
(i) Day-work to a two shift operation.
(ii) Two shift to a day-work operation.
shall be two weeks.
3. The shift differential for employees transferred from shift
work to day-work will be phased out as follows:
Up to 12 months on shift ................ 12 weeks phase out.
12 months to 36 months ................ 20 weeks phase out.
36 months and over ................ 26 weeks phase out.
The entitlement each week will be based on attendance for forty
ordinary hours. If the employee has less than forty ordinary
hours attendance, the payment will be pro-rata.