Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9019 Case Number: LCR12774 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning:- (a) Payment for working Saturday/Sunday. (b) Compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
9. (a) Weekend Overtime
Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that, having regard to the nature of the Company's
business, the Union should agree to negotiate equitable
terms for the payment of those workers who do not work a
normal working week and whose working hours fall mainly on
Saturday and Sunday, on the understanding that normal
overtime rates will continue to be paid to full time
workers who work at weekends.
(b) Compensation for loss of regular overtime
Whilst, as the Company states, the workers concerned may
have been aware that the tunnel filling arrangements were
temporary, these arrangements lasted a considerable period
of time. The Court therefore recommends that they be
compensated for the loss of regular overtime to the amount
of one year's loss.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9019 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12774
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:-
(a) Payment for working Saturday/Sunday.
(b) Compensation for loss of earnings.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is based at Tyholland, Co. Monaghan is
involved in the growing and processing of mushrooms and employs
approximately two hundred workers. The present claims were
discussed at local level and as no agreement was reached were
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
18th December, 1989. A conciliation conference was held on the
21st December, 1989. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 15th January, 1990. A Court
hearing was held in Cavan on the 6th March, 1990.
Claim I - Payment for working Saturday/Sunday
BACKGROUND:
3. The workers concerned are employed Saturday/Sunday as part of
their normal working week and under an agreement which has
operated for a number of years they are paid overtime rates for
these two days. The Company claims that this is an anomalous
situation and wishes to change the arrangement. It has offered to
make premium payments to the workers concerned instead of
overtime:-
10% premium for Saturday
20% premium for Sunday
The Company has also offered compensation to the workers as
follows:-
3 years' service or more #500 net per #1000 annual loss
2-3 years' service #400 net per #1000 " "
1-2 years " #300 net per #1000 " "
The Union has rejected the offer.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company in its attempt to introduce premium payments
in respect of Saturday and Sunday working is trying to change
agreed conditions of employment in operation since 1981 which
have been included in a comprehensive agreement recently
concluded.
2. The Company in recent times has expanded very
significantly. This has been done with the assistance of a
workforce prepared to work long and very unsocial hours on a
relatively low wage. They consider the present proposals of
the Company very poor reward for their efforts.
3. The Company could well look elsewhere to achieve its
stated objective of savings #65,000 per annum, particularly in
the area of management perks such as Company cars, and the
number of managers employed.
4. The workers concerned have rejected the Company proposals
on two occasions recently. This is not surprising when you
consider what is being proposed. The workers are only
interested in maintaining the agreed rates for Saturday and
Sunday working. Sunday work has recently been significantly
reduced due to the curtailment of mushroom collections from
growers.
5. The Company has tried to compare its situation with
hotels, hospitals, retail shops etc, which is somewhat
ridiculous considering that the Company is a large one with a
possible turnover of #30 million. A better comparison would
be with some industries in the local area such as
co-operatives which pay normal overtime rates and have to work
seven days a week.
6. The Company has been given the advantages of the Programme
for National Recovery such as low inflation, low interest
rates etc, while the workers concerned have had less than
adequate pay increases. The reduction in the working week has
not yet been addressed by the Company. The Union feels on
balance that every advantage has been given to the Company to
succeed.
7. The strength of sterling in the past has provided an
additional boost which should have put the Company on a firm
footing. The Union is aware that at one time they bought
sterling in advance to insure against fluctuations. They also
operate their own haulage Company based in the U.K.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The practice of paying overtime rates to workers who are
employed on Saturday and Sunday as part of their normal
working week arose as a result of the rapid growth of the
Company. It has resulted in prohibitively high labour costs
which the Company can no longer sustain in view of the present
market situation. The cost of the anomaly is in the order of
#65,000 p.a.
2. The mushroom business is a seven day operation as the
product is perishable and must be supplied to supermarkets on
a very regular basis. Competitors operate on a seven day
basis and pay flat rate for Saturdays and Sundays worked as
part of the normal forty hour week. By conceding any form of
premium for such days the Company is putting itself at a
disadvantage vis a vis its competitors. However by paying
existing overtime rates the Company is placing itself in a
very uncompetitive position which in the long term will not be
sustainable.
3. The workers concerned enjoy favourable rates of pay and
conditions of employment relative to other companies in the
industry and have benefited from the growth of the Company.
Average gross pay for employees in the relevant sections i.e.
prepack, fresh etc, are in many cases in excess of #300 per
week. The majority of employees who work weekends as part of
their normal week, commence work after 12 Noon, which attracts
a 16.6% premium in addition to the normal premium applying.
Therefore, even with the new premium rates, the majority would
actually get a 26.6% for Saturday and 36.6% premium for
Sunday.
4. At present due to the serious market situation, the
Company is forced to look at a number of areas in an effort to
cut costs and remain competitive. The Company originally
requested the employees to operate at basic rates on Saturday
and Sunday as part of a 40 hour week in return for a fixed
level of compensation. This was rejected out of hand, and the
Company subsequently offered new premium rates for
Saturday/Sunday in combination with compensation in the form
of a lump sum. The Company consider this to be a very
reasonable offer considering that competitor companies pay a
flat rate, and that other groups of employees who are rostered
5 over 6, i.e. shop workers, are paid a basic rate for
Saturday working, where the latter forms part of the first
five days.
Claim 2 - Compensation for loss of earnings
BACKGROUND:
6. The two workers concerned are employed in the tunnel filling
area. Prior to August, 1989 they worked Monday to Saturday. Due
to the installation of new equipment which improved production,
the necessity for Monday working was eliminated. The Union has
accepted the new working week but is claiming compensation on
behalf of the workers concerned in the amount of twice the annual
loss i.e. #3,200. The Company has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Due to the installation of the new equipment the Company
experienced a dramatic improvement in compost production and
was able to go from two shift working to single shift
resulting in more product being bagged with considerably less
man hours. The workers concerned lost one days pay. The
Company gained considerable benefit and made substantial
savings. The Union's claim for twice the annual loss is
reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. From its inception the Company has always stated, and the
Union has accepted that the normal week in the tunnel filling
area is Tuesday to Saturday. However initially the production
process was such that the two operatives in question also
worked Monday, but in the full knowledge that this was an
interim arrangement, and that they would revert to working
Tuesday to Saturday as soon as it was practical.
2. In August, 1989 the Company was in a position to fill
tunnels by day rather than in the evening/night. Consequently
the Company requested the 2 operatives involved to work
Tuesday to Saturday inclusive as their normal week. The
Company agreed to pay premium rates for Saturday until the
issue of premium rates for weekend working was resolved.
However the Company strongly rejected further claims for
compensation on foot of the elimination of Monday working, in
view of the circumstances outlined above.
3. Compensation for loss of earnings in relation to the
elimination of Monday work is not appropriate in this case in
view of the long established Company policy statement that the
standard week in the tunnel filling area is Tuesday to
Saturday.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. (a) Weekend Overtime
Having considered the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that, having regard to the nature of the Company's
business, the Union should agree to negotiate equitable
terms for the payment of those workers who do not work a
normal working week and whose working hours fall mainly on
Saturday and Sunday, on the understanding that normal
overtime rates will continue to be paid to full time
workers who work at weekends.
(b) Compensation for loss of regular overtime
Whilst, as the Company states, the workers concerned may
have been aware that the tunnel filling arrangements were
temporary, these arrangements lasted a considerable period
of time. The Court therefore recommends that they be
compensated for the loss of regular overtime to the amount
of one year's loss.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
9th April, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.