Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88846 Case Number: LCR12240 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims on behalf of 15 workers in the recovery department packaging area for improved conditions of employment arising from the introduction of a revised shift arrangement by the Company.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows in respect of the various elements of the
claim:-
1. New Roster - A premium of 25% to be paid.
2. Annual Leave - No increase in the existing allowance of 20
days.
3. Compensation for loss of Sunday overtime and loss of 2 hours
per week at double-time - A lump-sum of #2,000 to each
worker in settlement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88846 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12240
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of 15 workers in the recovery department
packaging area for improved conditions of employment arising from
the introduction of a revised shift arrangement by the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The packaging unit is part of the Company's chemicals
operation and packages citric acid and salts manufactured in the
recovery plant. Products are manufactured on a continuous process
basis and finished goods are stored in bins before packaging.
Plant throughput and bin storage capacity dictate the packaging
requirements. From 1971 to 1984 production volumes were
accommodated by a day-work crew in the packaging area.
3. In the late 1970's and early 1980's the Company embarked on a
cost improvement programme in response to market conditions
prevailing at that time. Part of the programme involved major
investment to increase production and thereby reduce unit cost.
By 1984 the increased production required more packaging hours and
a 2 team day-work roster which provides 6 day cover for 12 hours
each day was introduced. This is a two week cycle with an
average working week of 42 hours. A premium of 1/6 is paid for
this roster plus double-time for working Sunday when required.
4. Because of further increases in production volumes the Company
informed the workers in September, 1988 that it would, in order
for the Department to become efficient require additional
packaging time on seven days a week. In order to achieve this it
would be introducing a three week rota of 3 shifts with an average
of 40 hours per week.
5. Discussions took place at local level on claims arising from
the proposed revised arrangements. As no progress was possible
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 6th October, 1988. A conciliation conference was held on
26th October, 1988. At the conciliation conference the Union
quantified its claim for operating the new shift system as:-
(a) shift premium of 33 1/3%,
(b) 25 days annual leave (present annual leave
entitlement 20 days),
(c) retention of the 2 hours compulsory overtime or
double the annual loss (i.e. #2,661.36),
(d) compensation for loss of Sunday overtime
(#7,990.32 equivalent to double the annual loss).
In response the Company offered to pay 20% shift premium, and to
consider the payment of a once off lump-sum in respect of the loss
of the 2 hours overtime. It rejected the claims for increase in
annual leave and compensation for loss of overtime. As no
agreement was possible both parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held in Cork on the 11th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Shift Premium:
6. 1. The new shift system proposed by the Company will involve
going from a system of all-day work to a 3 shift system to
cover 7 days instead of 6 with Sunday being paid at flat rate
instead of double-time. These changes if accepted will
involve a considerable loss of earnings to the workers
concerned.
2. The Company's argument that 20% shift premium would be
adequate for the proposed new shift is incorrect. There are
90 companies throughout industry which pay between 20% and 25%
for 2 shifts working Monday to Friday with overtime payments
for Saturday and Sunday (details supplied to the Court). Also
there is another company locally where an offer of 28% has
been rejected by the workers in respect of a similar shift
being implemented (details supplied to the Court).
3. The majority of our members in Pfizers who work only 2
shifts (12 hour day shifts and 12 hour night shifts) receive a
shift premium of 33 1/3% for 7 days cover. The workers in the
recovery packaging department informed the Company that they
would be quite happy to operate the 2 shift system even though
it would virtually eliminate their overtime but it would
create even more jobs than the system proposed by the Company
and meet their production requirements. (The Company at
conciliation laid great emphasis on the fact that their new
system would create some new jobs).
Annual Leave:
6. 4. At present the workers in the recovery packaging
department have 20 days annual leave. The claim to have this
increased to 25 days is in line with the entitlement of the
majority of workers in Pfizers who presently have to give 7
day cover.
5. The original reason for conceding the 5 extra days annual
leave was because most social, family and sporting events
occurred at weekends. The normal holiday entitlements would
not be sufficient to allow them time-off to participate in the
activities referred to and therefore would have to take
time-off with a subsequent loss of pay. As the new shift
pattern proposed by the Company will involve 7 days cover
there is no justification for not conceding the additional 5
days annual leave.
Retention or compensation in respect of 2 hours each week:
6. 6. The introduction of the new shift system as proposed by
the Company would mean the loss of 2 hours pay at double-time
for the workers. This 2 hours is an integral part of the
present shift system and therefore is not optional. The Union
is seeking to retain this payment as there is no reason why
the workers should be out of pocket because of the Company's
proposal to change the present shift system. We are asking
the Court to recommend that our members continue to be paid
the 2 hours at double-time.
7. Should the Court decide that a buy-out would be more
appropriate the claim is for twice the annual loss. The
Company have accepted that a claim for compensation is
justified but have differed on the amount lost as well as the
formula for calculating the loss. (Details supplied to the
Court).
Compensation for loss of Sunday overtime:
6. 8. It is difficult to understand the arguments put forward by
the Company that the operators have had the advantage of
excessively high levels of overtime and the Company should not
have to incur compensation costs where these levels come down
to the site norm. Firstly the operators have been working
every second Sunday for the past 17 years because the Company
insisted that the overtime was necessary. Secondly there is
no 'site norm' for overtime as stated by the Company as each
department differs in the level of overtime worked. The
levels of overtime is determined by the "needs of the plant"
which is quite specifically stated in the Company/Union
Agreement. For the past 17 years the "needs of the plant" in
the packaging department, as determined by the Company, was to
work every second Sunday and that by any standards justifies a
claim for loss of Sunday overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Shift Premium:
7. 1. The Company/Union Agreement states that the Company has
the sole right to decide the number of shifts to be operated
and the hours of shift operation. The Company is satisfied
that the proposed roster is necessary to improve the
efficiency of the packaging department.
2. The 20% shift premium offer is very generous when compared
with the premia and hours worked on the other shifts within
the Company (details supplied to the Court). The offer is in
line with the Company/Union Agreement.
Annual Leave:
7. 3. Management rejected the claim for additional holidays.
Consistent with general practice the Company/Union Agreement
provides that only continuous 4-shift working attracts
additional holidays. For the Company to accede to this claim
could not be justified and would result in serious knock-on
claims from other groups of staff.
Retention of 2 hours each week:
7. 4. Building guaranteed overtime into the roster so that
operators would maintain their current weekly (42 hours) pay
rate would be totally contrary to site practice. Clause 17 of
the Company/Union Agreement states that the levels of overtime
will be determined by the needs of the plant, as decided by
Management, and no particular levels of overtime are
guaranteed. The loss of the equivalent of three hours basic
pay per week is a matter for compensation and the Company was
prepared to offer up to #800 in full and final settlement of
the claim.
5. The Company proposal will require the employment of three
additional men in the area and while current overtime levels
will be reduced it is expected that they will remain in line
with the site average.
Compensation for loss of Sunday overtime:
7. 6. Management rejected the Union's claim for compensation for
loss of Sunday overtime. Sunday overtime is part of overall
overtime and cannot be considered separately. Anyway,
overtime working will continue to be necessary in the
packaging area but at a level more in line with overtime
levels on the rest of the site. The operators have had the
advantage of excessively high overtime levels and the Company
should not have to incur compensation costs where these levels
come down to the site norm.
7. The chemicals business remains fiercely competitive and it
is imperative that costs are curtailed and the business is
operated in the most cost effective way possible. The
packaging department is a vital part of this business which
must be geared to handling increasing plant volumes in an
efficient and cost effective manner. Implementation of the
Company proposal is necessary to ensure the achievement of
this objective.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends as follows in respect of the various elements of the
claim:-
1. New Roster - A premium of 25% to be paid.
2. Annual Leave - No increase in the existing allowance of 20
days.
3. Compensation for loss of Sunday overtime and loss of 2 hours
per week at double-time - A lump-sum of #2,000 to each
worker in settlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
27th January, 1989
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.