Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89336 Case Number: LCR12592 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COMER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the terms of the Programme for National Recovery to weekend shift workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the Union's interpretation of the P.N.R. is
not correct and accordingly does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89336 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12592
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: COMER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the
terms of the Programme for National Recovery to weekend shift
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs one hundred and ten workers and operates a
day, evening, night and weekend shift. Three of the shifts
operate Monday to Friday and work a forty hour week (5 x 8 hour
shifts). The D shift operates during weekends from 8.00 a.m. to
midnight on Saturdays and from 4.00 p.m. on Sundays to 8.00 a.m.
on Mondays and work a thirty-two hour week (2 x 16 hour shifts).
Negotiations took place during 1988 on the implementation of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and it was agreed that a
#4.00 per week increase on basic would be applied to the weekday
shifts from 1st January, 1988. The Company has applied a pro rata
increase of 32/40ths i.e. #3.20 to the weekend shift workers on
the basis of previous practice and its position is that this was
clearly stated as the basis for acceptance. The Union is claiming
that these workers should also receive the #4 minimum increase in
line with the terms of the P.N.R. as thirty two hours is taken as
the full working week for a D shift worker. On 22nd September,
1988 the Union referred the matter to the Central Review Committee
for the P.N.R. for clarification in relation to clause 2 and was
subsequently advised to pursue the matter through normal
procedures. On 2nd November, 1988 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 16th February, 1989 at which agreement
was not reached and on 11th May, 1989 the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 26th September, 1989 (the earliest
date suitable to all parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A full week's work in the case of workers on the weekday
shifts comprises forty hours and equates to the D shift
workers thirty two hours week. This fact is reinforced by the
fact that the weekly collective bonus is paid equally to
workers on weekday and weekend shifts, irrespective of one
having a forty hour schedule and the other a thirty two hour
schedule. In addition, in respect of annual leave a full
week's holiday for a worker on a weekday shift is taken to be
forty hours while for a D shift worker a full week's holiday
is taken to be thirty two hours. Therefore as a thirty two
hour shift is regarded as a full week's work for these
workers they should receive the full minimum weekly increase.
2. On the basis that the weekend workers full week's work is
thirty two hours just as the weekday workers full week's work
is forty hours and as the Company has already agreed to the #4
minimum increase per week in local negotiations and agreements
it should be applied equally to all workers, in line with
clause 2 of the P.N.R. The modest adjustments in wages
contained in the P.N.R. were agreed by the unions in lieu of
other concessions such as special consideration for the lower
paid. It is that theory which must now be made effective in a
practical manner through the application of the #4.00 minimum
increase to the weekend shift workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All wage increases in the Company since 1981 have been
applied on a pro rata basis to weekend shift D and on three
occasions where the increase was stated in monetary rather
than percentage terms the pro rata basis has been maintained
(details supplied to the Court). This application has been
well established over a considerable period of time and in
this instance was stated in monetary terms in the Company's
letters and was clearly known to the Union when it accepted
this settlement in their letter of 7th March, 1988 (details
supplied to the Court).
2. To change the practice of applying general wage increases
on a pro rata basis for weekend shift would create anomalies
with the workers on the other shifts with subsequent claims
for parity. The application of the #4 minimum increase is not
an automatic entitlement as the P.N.R. provides that where the
formula would result in increases of less than #4 per week in
basic pay for full-time adult workers, "the increases could be
adjusted to that level by local negotiation and local
agreement." The Union's attempt to use this clause to change
the established practice in the Company, is unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the Union's interpretation of the P.N.R. is
not correct and accordingly does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
13th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.