Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89453 Case Number: LCR12597 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FOTOKING - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning various conditions of employment for night workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
and taking all the circumstances into account recommends that the
Company's offer be accepted with the following amendment:-
(a) That the gross lump sum of #50 offered in clause 3 be
increased to #125 payable to each member of the staff on
acceptance of the agreement.
(b) That the agreement be effective from the date of acceptance
of this recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89453 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12597
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FOTOKING
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning various conditions of employment for night
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are involved in film processing on a
permanent night basis from 6.00 p.m. to 3.00 a.m., Monday to
Thursday. In 1988, the Union made a claim for union recognition
and negotiation rights. A conciliation conference took place on
13th September, 1988 and the Company agreed to recognise and
negotiate with the Union. It was also decided that a
Company/Union agreement would be negotiated. A draft agreement
was prepared based on a previous agreement for day workers.
However, agreement could not be reached on a number of issues
including rates of pay, annual leave and shift premium. The
Company's position was that under the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (PNR) which had been implemented, there should
be no cost increasing claims. Rates of pay would be as per 1st
May, 1988 inclusive of phase 1 of the PNR and annual leave to be
sixteen days. The Union's claim was for twenty one days' annual
leave, the introduction of a 33 1/3 premium for night work, all
night workers to be paid at grade A rate and this rate to be
updated on the basis of the 'day' agreement of 1982 to the last
agreement with the Union in December, 1986 with a 5.9% increase
for 1987. No agreement was reached and on 16th February, 1989 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. Conciliation conferences took place on 26th April, 1989
and 11th May, 1989. During these conferences the Company put
forward a proposal based on a new system of working. The terms of
this proposal were outlined by the Company in letters of 22nd May,
1989 and 25th May, 1989 (see Appendix 1). Rates of pay (per hour)
with effect from 7th June, 1989 inclusive of phase 2 of the PNR to
be: grade A - #3.77; grade B - #3.67; grade C - #3.29; grade D
- #2.76. This was rejected by the Union and on 13th June, 1989
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 3rd August, 1989,
but was adjourned to allow further negotiations between the
parties. A conciliation conference took place on 17th August,
1989 at which settlement proposals were arrived at and confirmed
by the Company in a letter of 21st August, 1989 (see Appendix 2).
However, at a meeting of the workers these terms were rejected.
On 31st August, 1989 the matter was referred back to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 22nd September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union found that, after working out the effect of the
reduction of the hours in the Company's proposal and
subsequent loss of pay, the workers would be only marginally
better off with the Company's new proposal. The workers are
totally opposed to any reduction of hours which would lead to
a subsequent loss in earnings and overtime. The current basic
rate is low already and a further reduction could not be
accepted. The original grading structure was agreed in 1982
when night work did not exist. It is not possible to attempt
to retrospectively apply this scale and to use the job
classification of the day workers is not comparing like with
like. The grade A rate should be paid to all night workers.
2. The basic pay based on current hours should attract an
unsocial hours allowance. The Union is willing to enter into
discussions on hours of work, changing working schedules to
make the operation more efficient. However, the Company is
offering an unsocial hours allowance of 20% and then taking it
back by reducing hours. The date of settlement of this issue
should be when the claim was formally served, i.e. January,
1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current terms and conditions of employment which exist
in the Company are the result of previous agreements and are
currently covered by the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery. The Company has moved a long way from its original
position in trying to meet the aspirations of the Union. The
agreement reached at conciliation and confirmed in writing on
21st August, 1989 should be accepted by the parties and
implemented without undue delay and the allowances would then
be paid.