Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9096 Case Number: LCR12790 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH FERTILISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim for the phasing in of a work outside of normal hours payment.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court, in the context of the Company's proposals to equate
conditions in Arklow and Cork, recommends that the 80 hours be
phased in, in moities the first on 1st March, 1991 and the second
on 1st March, 1992.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9096 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12790
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH FERTILISER INDUSTRIES LIMITED
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the phasing in of a work outside of normal hours
payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns six technicians who are employed at the
Company's plant in Arklow. The Company also has a plant in Cork.
Labour Court Recommendation 12581 which issued in September, 1989
dealt with salary realignments/analogies and the upgrading of two
technicians. It was rejected by the Union and an industrial
dispute occurred at the Arklow plant in October, 1989. The
dispute was settled on the basis of a formula proposed at a
conciliation conference on the 6th November, 1989 (details
supplied to the Court). Included in the formula was a clause
stipulating that the parties have further discussions on
eliminating differences between technicians at Arklow and their
counterparts in Cork. One of the differences that existed between
the sites was the payment of an overtime allowance at Cork which
equated at 160 hours at overtime rate per annum. A sum of money
equating to 80 hours overtime has been incorporated into the
salaries of the workers concerned in 4 increments. This leaves a
difference of 80 hours remaining. The Union claim is to have the
remaining hours phased in from 1st January, 1989 in two phases.
The Company proposed phasing in the 80 hours overtime as follows
June 1st 1991 24 hours, June 1st 1992 an additional 28 hours, June
1st 1993 the final 28 hours. Local discussions and a conciliation
conference held on the 2nd February, 1990 failed to resolve the
issue which was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th February,
1990. A Court hearing was held on the 20th March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the terms of the Company plan for competitiveness
(details supplied to the Court) Management agreed to eliminate
differences between the Arklow and Cork plants. The payment
of 80 hours at time of 1.86 overtime in Cork was not available
at Arklow. Under the dispute settlement proposals of 6th
November, 1989 the Company agreed to address this issue.
2. The Union's claim, based on the fact that the 3 year
comprehensive agreement had expired for technicians at Arklow
in December, 1988, is that the phasing in of the payment
should begin as from 1st January, 1989. It should be paid in
two phases with 50% on the 1st January, 1989 and with
retrospection accordingly.
3. The Company's offer to implement the phasing in of the
payments as from the expiry date of the P.N.R. is not
acceptable to the Union. The undertaking to eliminate
differences between the conditions of technicians at Cork and
Arklow commenced in 1985 over a three year period i.e. prior
to the tenancy of the current P.N.R. The completion of the
standardisation of conditions should not therefore be
prevented. The Company should introduce the payment of the 80
hours on the basis suggested by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1984 the Company introduced a Programme for
Competitiveness based on a reduction in numbers employed,
re-structuring, and a comprehensive agreement. In return for
acceptance of the three items the Company introduced a three
year wage agreement which awarded increases of 4%, 2% and 3%
in addition to the national wage agreement applying at the
time. The Programme was accepted by the workers concerned.
The agreement included a no cost increasing claim clause. The
agreement overlapped with the P.N.R. which expires in the
Company on 28th February, 1991.
2. In responding to the proposals of 6th November, 1989
Management was not prepared to disturb the conditions of the
P.N.R. within the Company by granting any payment outside the
terms of the Programme until after the expiry date i.e.
February 28th, 1991.
3. The Company has responded in a reasonable manner because
(i) it give a time table for the application of 80 hours
overtime payment to the Arklow technicians,
(ii) the proposal was to phase in the 80 hours overtime
payment in three increments over two years. The
phasing in of the first 80 hours was in four
instalments - 1985, 86, 87 and 1988.
4. The Company recognises the differences that exist between
the sites. In 1988 another group of workers at Arklow
referred a claim to the Court for concession of the remaining
half of overtime payment applying to their counterparts in
Cork. In L.C.R. 12167 the Court recommended that
"the Company policy for phasing out the anomaly that
exists in Cork is reasonable and should be
continued."
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court, in the context of the Company's proposals to equate
conditions in Arklow and Cork, recommends that the 80 hours be
phased in, in moities the first on 1st March, 1991 and the second
on 1st March, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
19th April, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.