Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89525 Case Number: LCR12570 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MINCH NORTON PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims by the Union on behalf of 17 workers for compensation in respect of:- (i) Loss of basic pay for drivers. (ii) Loss of structured overtime for operators. (iii) Change in shift arrangements. (iv) Change in annual leave arrangements for 4 shift workers. (v) Differentials to operators.
Recommendation:
18. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends as follows in respect of loss of income:-
Compensation for loss of basic pay (drivers)
Payment of six months loss of driving differential.
Compensation for loss of structured overtime
Six months payment of the difference in value between the
structured overtime which was abolished and the actual
overtime worked, calculated over the 12 months period from the
introduction of the rationalised working.
Compensation for change of shift arrangements
Six months payment of the difference in premium paid for three
and two shift working.
Shift Holidays, Athy
The Court recommends that for 1990 and onwards shift holidays
be implemented in Athy as in the rest of the Minch Norton
Group and that the four operatives concerned be paid #500 each
compensation for the change.
Differentials (operatives)
As agreed at the Court hearing, the parties should have
further discussions on the method of qualification for and
application of differentials to operatives who periodically do
higher level work.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89525 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12570
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MINCH NORTON PLC
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union on behalf of 17 workers for compensation
in respect of:-
(i) Loss of basic pay for drivers.
(ii) Loss of structured overtime for operators.
(iii) Change in shift arrangements.
(iv) Change in annual leave arrangements for 4 shift workers.
(v) Differentials to operators.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. Following the implementation of a comprehensive
rationalisation programme and subsequent Labour Court
Recommendation (L.C.R. 12389) concerning redundancy terms, the
parties entered into further discussions in relation to
compensation and flexibility in work practices. These discussions
were not successful and the issues were referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 6th June, 1989. A
conciliation conference was held on the 12th June, 1989 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 26th July, 1989.
A Court hearing was held on the 8th September, 1989.
Claim 1 Loss of basic pay for drivers
Background:
3. Under the rationalisation plan the Company contracted out its
transport requirements. Four former drivers and one relief driver
decided not to volunteer for redundancy but to take alternative
positions as operatives in the Company. This resulted in a loss
of the driving differential of #9.83 per week. The Union is
claiming two times the annual loss. The Company has rejected the
claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the rationalisation plan the workers
concerned have suffered substantial losses (details supplied
to the Court). Their pension entitlements are adversely
affected. The loss of the driving differential alone will
induce a loss of #511.16 of pensionable salary per annum. The
Union's claim for two times the annual loss is reasonable, and
would be a fair and equitable settlement of the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The loss of the drivers' differential for the workers
arose out of their decision to remain with the Company in
alternative employment. In opting for other employment the
workers were aware that they would be losing the driving
differential. They were also aware that other earning
opportunities would exist in the production area. The Company
has offered 25% of one year's estimated loss of earnings.
This offer is a reasonable one.
Claim II Loss of structured overtime
Background:
6. Prior to the implementation of the rationalisation plan the
workers concerned enjoyed a level of scheduled overtime whether or
not overtime working was actually required. This overtime no
longer exists, but will be available on a non scheduled basis when
required. The change affects about 10 workers.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company and the Union have agreed on the figures in
relation to the financial loss of the workers concerned. The
Company's offer of 25% of the actual annual loss is
unacceptable considering the substantial loss occurred by the
workers. The Union is seeking 2 times the annual loss for the
workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Scheduled overtime existed in a number areas of the
Company whether or not it was required. The Company had to
try to adapt work to suit the schedule of overtime. The new
situation applying is that overtime is made available in
response to work/production demand. This does not necessarily
mean a reduction in overtime working and in fact overall
levels of overtime have not decreased since the introduction
of the rationalisation programme.
Claim III Change in shift arrangements
Background:
9. The production plant concerned (Bobyplant) was operated on a
continuous basis 24 hours a day, 7 days per week and necessitated
three shift working over 7 days. Under the rationalisation
programme the plant will now operate on a two shift system 7 days
per week. Consequently the shift premium will fall from 33.3% to
20%.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The workers concerned have had their shift premium reduced
from 33 1/3 to 20% and have also suffered a reduction in
holidays and holiday pay rate. As they have co-operated fully
with the changes introduced and production output has
increased the Union is claiming compensation in the amount of
2 times the annual loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. Shift premiums which are paid relate to perceived
unsociability of the shift pattern. Four shift working is
generally recognised as a shift pattern carrying the higher
premium due to the nature of the shift involved.
2. On two shift working a lower shift premium applies, as the
shift working involved is less unsociable. The normal premium
for two shift working ranges from 16.6 to 20% generally. In
this case the Company is paying the shift premium at the
higher end of the range. The Company does not see that a
substantial claim for compensation exists in these
circumstances.
Claim IV Change in annual leave arrangements for 4 shift workers.
Background:
12. At the Company's Athy plant the annual leave entitlement of
the shift operators is approximately 35 days per year (as
interpreted by a local agreement). The operators have been in
receipt of this entitlement for many years. The Company claims
that this is an anomaly and that operators at its other plants
receive 25 days per year. The Company now wishes to bring the
leave entitlements of the workers concerned into line with other
plants and reduce their leave entitlements to 25 days a year.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. The current system is in practice for the best part of
twenty years and is part and parcel of agreed conditions and
rates for this operation. The Company's proposal is totally
unacceptable for the reasons of obvious custom and practice.
2. For many years the system of applying the annual leave to
operators at this plant has been subscribed to by the Company,
and has only been disputed by them in the past two years.
3. The present system in operation is the legitimate one and
is clearly an established condition in the contract of
employment of the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. The original agreement extending 25 days annual leave to 4
shift workers was implemented in all companies in the malting
industry and in another plant in the Company. A mistake was
made in Athy, where a unique interpretation applied giving 4
shift workers 35 days instead of the 25 days a year. Had the
Company allowed this practice to continue, it would have
clearly discriminated against those employees who agreed to
change outdated or out of line agreements which were no longer
sustainable in the highly competitive environment.
2. This anomalous and out of line arrangement clearly cannot
be allowed to continue for the workers concerned. The
Company's concession to allow this unique anomaly to continue
for 1989 was a substantial concession and should be recognised
as such. The Company requests that the Court recommend that
from 1990 on, annual leave would be on the agreed basis of 25
days.
Claim V Differential Rate (Operators)
Background:
15. The two plant operators concerned acquired the higher rate
(current weekly differential is #9.83) nine and seven years ago
respectively, and both have carried it continuously since that
time. During previous discussions the Union claims that the only
section of workers targeted to lose their differential rate were
the drivers. They claim no agreement was reached on plant
operators. The Company contends that their understanding of the
agreement reached between the parties was that if workers did not
qualify for the differential rate then it was not held.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
16. 1. The understanding of the Union on this issue was that
plant operators carrying the differential would continue to
carry same and that workers including the drivers who were now
being moved into the plant and allocated jobs that merited the
differential rate, would have to work 22 weeks on the specific
jobs before the rate could be paid, and that once paid, the
rate would continue in perpetuity (normal custom and
practice).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
17. 1. The Company's interpretation of the agreement reached
between the parties is that the workers concerned would have
to work 22 weeks before the rate would be paid, and that this
rate would be carried for the rest of the year only.
RECOMMENDATION:
18. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends as follows in respect of loss of income:-
Compensation for loss of basic pay (drivers)
Payment of six months loss of driving differential.
Compensation for loss of structured overtime
Six months payment of the difference in value between the
structured overtime which was abolished and the actual
overtime worked, calculated over the 12 months period from the
introduction of the rationalised working.
Compensation for change of shift arrangements
Six months payment of the difference in premium paid for three
and two shift working.
Shift Holidays, Athy
The Court recommends that for 1990 and onwards shift holidays
be implemented in Athy as in the rest of the Minch Norton
Group and that the four operatives concerned be paid #500 each
compensation for the change.
Differentials (operatives)
As agreed at the Court hearing, the parties should have
further discussions on the method of qualification for and
application of differentials to operatives who periodically do
higher level work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
_22nd__September, 1989 Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.