Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89255 Case Number: LCR12402 Section / Act: S67 Parties: YEAST PRODUCTS LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for the introduction of:- (1) Sick Pay Scheme (2) Pension Scheme (3) Shared V.H.I. Contributions (4) Overtime for early start and the inclusion of overtime in the calculation of holiday pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Union claim is in two parts seeking:-
(a) additional non-wage benefits and
(b) an interpretation of the agreements covering overtime
which would result in enhanced payments.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS:
Having considered the submission and arguments made by the
parties, the Court is of the view that the Union has not
established that references which may have been made to additional
benefits during discussions leading to the 1985 agreement amounted
to an undertaking by the Company to negotiate the introduction of
such benefits at the three year review stage. As a consequence,
such claims are now subject to the terms of the P.N.R. under which
the Union signed agreement before it submitted details of its
present claim. The exception is the question of a pension scheme,
which on the strength of conviction expressed by the Union and in
the interest of continuing harmonious Industrial Relations, the
Company accepted as a prior commitment albeit with the condition
that all other claims be dropped. Accordingly the Court
recommends that the Company negotiate with the Union on the
introduction of a Pension Scheme. The Court does not recommend
concession at this time of the claim for a sick-pay scheme and
payment by the Company of V.H.I. contributions.
Overtime Payments:
Holiday Pay:
The inclusion of the 10 hours average regular rostered overtime in
two weeks holiday pay was part of the 26th Round agreement which
ruled out any further cost increasing claims. This agreement was
followed immediately by the P.N.R. which also disbarred further
cost increasing claims. Accordingly the Court does not recommend
any change in existing arrangements.
Early Start:
The clause in the 1985 agreement covering applicable overtime
rates is ambiguous but the Company's interpretation would imply a
floating starting time which the Court considers unreasonable.
Accordingly the Court recommends concession of the Union claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89255 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12402
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: YEAST PRODUCTS LTD
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the introduction of:-
(1) Sick Pay Scheme
(2) Pension Scheme
(3) Shared V.H.I. Contributions
(4) Overtime for early start and the inclusion of overtime
in the calculation of holiday pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1985 and at that time a staff
agreement was negotiated which allowed for a review of conditions
at the end of three years i.e. July 1988. In May 1988 the Union
requested a review of the agreement and presented the Company with
a list of claims on 19th July, 1988. On 13th July, 1988 the Union
and Company agreed the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery effective from 1st July, 1988. They held a number of
discussions at local level in an effort to settle the claims
presented on 19th July but as only minor changes were agreed the
matter was referred to the Labour Court and a conciliation
conference took place on 24th February, 1989. The conference was
adjourned to allow for further discussions at local level, during
which the Company agreed to negotiate a pension scheme with the
Union, if all other claims were dropped. This was not acceptable
to the Union and the matter was referred back to a conciliation
conference on 11th April 1989, from which settlement proposals
emerged. The proposals were not accepted by the Company and both
parties agreed to a Labour Court hearing. The Court investigated
the dispute on 2nd May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENT'S:
3. 1. (A) Sick Pay (B) Pensions and (C) VHI Cover - The
workers concerned with the claim have helped the Company to
get off the ground and they now want to plan a future within
this employment. They are of an age range where long term
commitments regarding marriage, house buying, rearing and
educating children require that a regular income is assured.
The benefits being sought to allow for such commitments are -
(A) A company sick pay scheme together with social
welfare benefit that would assure employees of
normal take home pay in the event of short term
illness.
(B) An income continuance plan as part of a pension
scheme that would assure employees of a reasonable
percentage of normal earnings long term, with
pension to follow, in the event of long term
illness. Should a worker die while still in
employment, spouses and children would be covered
for ongoing pensions and a mortality lump sum.
(C) V.H.I. cover (workers are willing to pay 50% of
costs) to assure workers of hospitalisation
insurance in the event of earnings exceeding limits
prescribed under the health acts.
2. Overtime:
Claim for double time for early start:
In 1987 a Labour Court conciliation conference agreed an
average regular rostered overtime payment for two weeks of
summer holidays. The regular overtime worked at that time was
ten hours on Sunday at double time which equalled twenty hours
flat, which when divided between the three terms of two men on
shift rotation gave them 6.6 hours flat time on each of their
two weeks summer holidays. The regular rostered overtime has
since increased from ten to twelve hours on Sunday and to six
hours on Saturday, giving a total of thirty four flat hours,
thus increasing the overtime payment due for the two weeks
summer holidays from 6.6 hours to 11.3 hours.
Inclusion of rostered overtime in Holiday Pay:
The Union also claim payment of double time for work done
before normal starting time both on day work and shift work.
They thought that this was agreed in the original
comprehensive agreement with the Company but discovered during
the review discussions that time and a half was only being
paid. The Company have since agreed to pay double time to day
workers who commence work before normal starting time but will
not agree to pay shift workers. A staff agreement negotiated
in 1985 states that double time is paid for overtime worked in
excess of four hours after normal finishing time and before
normal starting time (details supplied).
3. The company content that under the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery further cost increasing claims are debarred.
The company agreement negotiated with the original management
in 1985 included a clause allowing for a review of conditions
after three years. The company were notified by the Union of
its intention to seek a review of conditions before the terms
of the Programme for National Recovery were agreed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. (A) Sick Pay, (B) Pensions and (C) VHI cover:
(A) The company operate on a continuous shift basis and the
operation is tightly manned. All absenteeism has to be
covered on an overtime basis and accordingly there are genuine
fears that the introduction of a sick pay scheme would
unintentionally fuel absenteeism which the company could not
afford to absorb.
(B) Although an offer was made to introduce a Pension Scheme in an
effort to settle the dispute, it would impose a significant
cost on the company given its size, its short time in
existence and management's efforts to develop the business.
(C) The company feels that the impact of PAYE/PRSI limits on
individual earnings is not a matter over which it has control
and it should not have to bear the burden of the recent
government cutbacks in the health service.
2. Overtime:
Claim for double time for early start:
The clause in the Company/Union agreement relating to overtime
states that:-
"On completion of eight hours, the next four hours will be
paid at basic plus 50%, thereafter at basic plus 100% until
starting time next day". In the absence of any reference to
normal starting time the clause has been interpreted to mean
that early start does not attract a premium but as soon as an
employee has completed 8 hours he/she gets T + 50%. The
application of this interpretation has been accepted by both
the company and the Union since the signing of the agreement
and has become custom and practice in the employment.
Inclusion of rostered overtime in Holiday Pay:
An agreement was reached at conciliation, as part of the 26th
Wage Round, to include 10 hours average regular rostered
overtime where appropriate in respect of the 2 weeks summer
holidays. No commitment was given that all overtime would be
included in calculating pay for this period of annual leave.
The situation was to be reviewed on the expiry of the
Company/Union Agreement. In early 1988, in an effort to
maximise efficiency and enhance its market share, the company
reduced the number of brews from 6 to 5, thus eliminating
Saturday overtime. The Union then threatened to withdraw from
all overtime work until the situation was resolved to their
satisfaction. Following discussions the company agreed to
make up to 6 hours of work available on Saturdays. The
company entered into this agreement in good faith and with no
mention that the additional overtime would be included when
calculating holiday pay.
3. On 13th July, 1988 the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery were agreed, effective from 1st July, 1988. The
agreement was for three years and there were to be no further
cost increasing claims for the duration of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Union claim is in two parts seeking:-
(a) additional non-wage benefits and
(b) an interpretation of the agreements covering overtime
which would result in enhanced payments.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS:
Having considered the submission and arguments made by the
parties, the Court is of the view that the Union has not
established that references which may have been made to additional
benefits during discussions leading to the 1985 agreement amounted
to an undertaking by the Company to negotiate the introduction of
such benefits at the three year review stage. As a consequence,
such claims are now subject to the terms of the P.N.R. under which
the Union signed agreement before it submitted details of its
present claim. The exception is the question of a pension scheme,
which on the strength of conviction expressed by the Union and in
the interest of continuing harmonious Industrial Relations, the
Company accepted as a prior commitment albeit with the condition
that all other claims be dropped. Accordingly the Court
recommends that the Company negotiate with the Union on the
introduction of a Pension Scheme. The Court does not recommend
concession at this time of the claim for a sick-pay scheme and
payment by the Company of V.H.I. contributions.
Overtime Payments:
Holiday Pay:
The inclusion of the 10 hours average regular rostered overtime in
two weeks holiday pay was part of the 26th Round agreement which
ruled out any further cost increasing claims. This agreement was
followed immediately by the P.N.R. which also disbarred further
cost increasing claims. Accordingly the Court does not recommend
any change in existing arrangements.
Early Start:
The clause in the 1985 agreement covering applicable overtime
rates is ambiguous but the Company's interpretation would imply a
floating starting time which the Court considers unreasonable.
Accordingly the Court recommends concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
18th May, 1989 ----------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman