Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90157 Case Number: LCR12807 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURY (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of 225 evening part-time workers for an increase in their shift allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has taken account of all of the points raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court, in all the circumstances of this case, recommends that
the shift rate for the E.P.T. group be increased to 54.57% of the
two shift rate currently applicable (#1.21.76 per hour) and
maintained at that percentage for the future. The above rate to
be applied with effect from week commencing 1st April, 1990.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90157 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12807
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CADBURY (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of 225 evening part-time workers
for an increase in their shift allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The evening part-time (E.P.T.) workers work a 29.5 hour week
on evening shifts, 4.20 p.m. - 10.10 p.m. Monday to Thursday and
3.20 p.m. - 9.25 p.m. on Friday. They receive a shift allowance
of #13.08. Their wages rates are arrived at by reference to the
rates of the 39 hours workers and are applied on a pro-rata basis.
The Unions claim that the nearest equivalent in the Company to
this group, the two shift production workers, receive a shift rate
of #47.49. Therefore, if the rates were done on a pro-rata basis
the E.P.T. group should receive a shift allowance of approximately
#31. Local level discussions failed to resolve the dispute and on
5th February, 1990, the issue was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 20th February, 1990, and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court on 28th February, 1990,
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 2nd March, and 13th March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. How the current shift rate was arrived at is not clear.
In 1976, a shift rate of sorts, amounting to #3.22 was
introduced. Since then it has attracted various increases
over the years. There does not appear to be any mathematical
basis on which the initial shift rate was arrived at, other
than as an industrial relations settlement.
2. The Unions have sought on a number of occasions to have
the matter dealt with by the Company. The Company has failed
to address the issue and this led to serious difficulties in
concluding the last "House Agreement."
3. The Company maintains that this issue cannot be dealt with
in isolation and must be considered in the context of the
overall "House Agreement." The Company is insisting that the
matter be part of the overall negotiations currently underway.
If this logic was to be followed then no claims could be
submitted outside of the normal wage negotiations. The
Union's view is that the claim should be dealt with on its own
merits.
4. The issue is a long standing one involving a group of long
service workers, all of whom are women. The shift allowance
must be put on a proper footing in a fair and equitable manner
to remove the long-standing injustice.
5. The Unions believe that the Company is attempting to avoid
dealing with this anomaly. This will create a climate of
industrial unrest and will make it difficult to continue the
good industrial relations that have previously existed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Unions are seeking an increase of #18 per week for 225
workers. This represents a significant cost to the Company
wage bill and given that the Company has an agreement with all
groups on fixed differentials, concession of the claim could
give rise to repercussive claims which would have a negative
impact on the Company's viability and success.
2. Historically, the E.P.T. working pattern was put in place
to facilitate workers who would find it difficult to work more
established work patterns. It is not a normal shift pattern
in the true sense. For this reason the Company did not pay a
shift premium to the E.P.T. group for working these hours. It
was only at the request of the Unions in 1976 that a weekly
payment was given. The Company has never considered this
payment to be a shift premium in the normally accepted sense.
3. If a pro-rata 2 shift premium had to be paid to the E.P.T.
group it would call into question the economics of this
working pattern and could lead to a review of all working
patterns on site.
4. The Company's rates of pay compare favourably with rates
in other firms, particularly those in the confectionery
industry. This is no less true in the case of E.P.T. workers.
5. It is the Company's view that this is a cost increasing
claim and is therefore precluded under Clause 4 of the
Programme for National Recovery.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has taken account of all of the points raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court, in all the circumstances of this case, recommends that
the shift rate for the E.P.T. group be increased to 54.57% of the
two shift rate currently applicable (#1.21.76 per hour) and
maintained at that percentage for the future. The above rate to
be applied with effect from week commencing 1st April, 1990.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
4th April, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.