Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89590 Case Number: LCR12552 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ALFRED BIRD AND SONS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of shift earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered all the circumstances of this claim, the
Court recommends that the Company should amend its offer as set
out below and that the Union should accept this.
6 Packing Operatives #1,350 each
2 Process Operatives #1,400 each
3 Warehousemen # 950 each
C Lumsden #2,000 each
G McShery #1,900 each
J.Mitchell #2,100 each
The two packing operatives who were 2 years on shift should each
receive an amount of #900. The remaining fitter should receive an
ex gratia payment of #400.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89590 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12552
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ALFRED BIRD AND SONS (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of shift
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of General Foods Corporation which
in turn is owned by Philip Morris Companies Incorporated. The
Company is involved in the manufacture and importation of deserts
and coffee. It also packs and manufactures products for its
associated companies in the United Kingdom and Germany. In
September, 1986 the Company secured a contract for the packaging
of coffee in 300g. jars for export to an associated British
company. As a result, the Company introduced two shift working
for coffee packing and increased the numbers employed. The
Company informed the workers in September, 1988 that the Company
had lost the contract for packaging the 300g. jars and that it
would be necessary to end shift work on completion of the orders
in hand. The Company secured an order for the packing of 25g.
jars of instant coffee before the 300g. order was completed and
shiftworking was retained. Sixteen (16) workers were involved in
shift working directly or in providing backup services (details
supplied to the Court). The agreed hours of the shiftwork were
from 7.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., and from 3.25 p.m. to 11.25 p.m.,
alternating each week. A standard shift rate of 20 per cent
applied to the operatives. The rate for the two supervisors was
fixed at 50%, because of a previous agreement in the Company. At
the end of 1988 the Unions indicated to the Company that they
would seek compensation if the shiftwork was terminated. The
Company took the view that the proposed cessation of shiftwork was
due to the loss of an export contract and that because this was
outside their, control compensation was not payable. The Unions
at first sought a red circling of the premium payable to the
employees concerned. They subsequently claimed compensation of 2
year's loss of earnings. The Company rejected the claim. The
shiftwork ended at the annual holidays and shut-down on August 4,
1989. Agreement was not reached at local level and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 12th
January, 1989. Nine conciliation conferences followed. The last
was held on 30th August, 1989. Agreement was not reached and on
4th September, 1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 8th September, 1989. The Court issued its recommendation
by letter to the parties on 12th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Compensation is paid when the cessation of shiftwork
results in loss of earnings. The Labour Court has upheld this
in numerous recommendations (details supplied to the Court).
When shift working commenced in the coffee packing area the
Company gave the workers to believe that it would be
permanent. Their standard of living, expectations, and
financial commitments were based on their level of earnings
while working the shift.
2. The workers have a very reasonable and justifiable
expectation that compensation will be paid in this instance.
The loss to the workers is considerable and will have serious
financial repercussions for them. There is precedent for the
Company paying compensation on the cessation of shift-work.
Compensation should be paid in this instance also.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The continued viability of the Company's operations at
Clondalkin depends upon it being cost effective and in
obtaining export orders from other general foods companies.
The export volume is not continuous. It is reflective of
market trends outside of Ireland. Where additional volume is
required the Company's policy is to produce this through
maximising the use of plant and equipment by operating on a
shiftwork basis. No compensation is paid on termination of
occasional shifts which have been worked to achieve this
objective. This requirement for non-continuous shift working
precludes the Company from compensating employees for loss of
earnings when shift working is terminated.
2. The Company cannot guarantee the permanency of shift
working or of any other form of premium working. The
reduction in shift working in this case has arisen because of
a loss of export business. No action or omission by the
Company led to the loss and hence the Company should not be
liable.
3. Twelve months notice was given before shift-working was
terminated. This should be sufficient compensation as the 12
month extension resulted from management efforts to obtain
additional export business, which gave employees the benefit
of higher earnings for an extra year. Earnings in the Company
are among the highest in the industry (details supplied to the
Court).
4. The Company will continue to seek additional volume and
orders. This may entail further (albeit not continuous) shift
working. The Company, made an offer of six months
compensation per employee at standard shift premium of 20%.
The Company believes that this offer is very generous and
should be accepted by the Unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered all the circumstances of this claim, the
Court recommends that the Company should amend its offer as set
out below and that the Union should accept this.
6 Packing Operatives #1,350 each
2 Process Operatives #1,400 each
3 Warehousemen # 950 each
C Lumsden #2,000 each
G McShery #1,900 each
J.Mitchell #2,100 each
The two packing operatives who were 2 years on shift should each
receive an amount of #900. The remaining fitter should receive an
ex gratia payment of #400.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
-----------------
23rd September, 1989
P.F./J.C. Chairman.