Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88744 Case Number: LCR12201 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of 50 workers for the payment of a shift premium for an extended twilight shift.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, is of the view that in the particular circumstances of
this case the Company should offer and the Unions accept a sum of
#150 gross, (inclusive of the 2 weeks premium already paid), in
full settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88744 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12201
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 50 workers for the payment of
a shift premium for an extended twilight shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to a strike in one of the Vauxhall plants in Britain, one
of the production lines on day work was threatened with lay-off.
In an effort to off-set the lay-offs, the Company in consultation
with the Unions took on extra business. In the interim the
Vauxhall dispute ended and the Company was left with the extra
business. In October, 1987, the Unions were advised that the
Company intended setting up a special evening shift. The matter
was discussed at local level and it was assumed that the manning
for the shift would be made up of a combination of existing staff
supplemented by new recruits. It was also assumed that the shift,
being full time, would attract a 20% premium, as it appeared to
involve 40 hours work per week while the twilight shift only
attracts the 20% premium after 20 hours. When the shift was being
set up, the Company felt that only 36.25 hours would in fact need
to be worked and as a result redesignated the shift as an
'extended twilight shift' operating between 4.45 p.m. and
midnight. Whilst this shift was not in operation in the Company,
it was provided for in the Company/Union agreement. Fifty workers
were required for the shift which operated from November, 1987, to
May, 1988.
3. At a meeting on 6th November, 1987, the Unions took issue with
the Company over it's decision to designate the new shift as
'extended twilight' because this would mean that the 20% premium
would only apply on the 16.25 hours worked over the regular
twilight shift of 20 hours. The Unions claimed that it had been
understood that the shift was to be an extra evening shift with
the 20% premium applying to all hours. The Company rejected the
claim arguing that the prime objective had been to retain workers
in employment. The workers had been advised that an extended
twilight shift was being introduced and that they were not obliged
to work the shift. The Company as a goodwill gesture offered and
paid two weeks shift premium for all hours worked, as provided for
in the Company/Union agreement when shift changes are affected.
This was rejected by the Unions as being inadequate and the matter
was referred on 20th May, 1988, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. No agreement was reached at conciliation
conferences held on 7th July, and 5th October, 1988, and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 5th October, 1988, for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
1st December, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the outset the shift was perceived as an extra shift
and workers recruited or transferred onto the shift were so
advised. While the Company maintains that some workers were
advised, prior to the start of the shift, that it was an
extended twilight shift, a significant number were still under
the impression that it was an extra shift. They held this
impression until the premium was reduced 2 weeks later.
2. The Company/Union Agreement on extended shifts gives the
Company the facility for flexibility in production. From the
Unions' point of view it's use in this instance is an abuse.
It is being used as a substitute for an extra shift, at
cheaper overall rates.
3. The Company has accepted that there was some confusion
over the nature of the shift. However, the payment of 2 weeks
full premium does not compensate for the fact that for 30
weeks the workers operated a full extra shift for a premium
below the accepted premium for a shift of such duration.
4. The Unions claim that each worker should be compensated by
#492.80 each, based on the following:-
30 weeks x 50 workers x 20% premium = 6,000 hours,
120 hours per worker - 8 hours (first 2 weeks) = 112 hours,
112 hours x #4.40 per hour = #492.80.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The origin of the shift was the Company's desire to find a
way of retaining existing employees and avoiding lay-offs due
to the Vauxhall strike, in line with the spirit of it's
commitment to job retention. When this changed the Company
retained the additional business, and recruited new employees
for the shift, all of whom have remained in the Company's
employment since, and are now permanent employees.
2. The change to an extended twilight shift was due to the
schedule load and this was notified to the workers before the
scheduled start up of the shift. Employees who could not give
a commitment for the duration of the shift were accommodated
elsewhere in the plant.
3. The Company did pay the premium on all hours worked for 2
weeks, as an ex-gratia gesture in the circumstances and
without prejudice. Such payment is all that would have been
necessary in the case of a change of shift and introduction of
a new shift under the agreement. The Company should have no
further liability.
4. The new shift was rightly an extended twilight shift
because as the schedules dropped after 5 or 6 months of
operation, the extended shift reverted to normal twilight
shift and the workers operated on this basis. It was known
that this would happen. The terms applicable to extended
twilight shift as set out in the current agreement were
applied by the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, is of the view that in the particular circumstances of
this case the Company should offer and the Unions accept a sum of
#150 gross, (inclusive of the 2 weeks premium already paid), in
full settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___12th___January,__1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman