Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89469 Case Number: LCR12697 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 3 craftsmen for the payment of a higher shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the terms for working of shift were not specifically
changed by any of the agreements negotiated since 1983. The Court
therefore recommends that the Company concede the Union's claim in
respect of 3 shift working.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89469 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12697
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 3 craftsmen for the payment of
a higher shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to 1983, both craft workers and general operatives
benefited from a 1981 general workers settlement giving 28% + 8%
productivity - a total of 36% premium - for 3 shift operation. In
1986, craft workers put on a 2 shift operation in another part of
the factory were offered and accepted a 20% shift premium. In
1987, the Company and Union concluded a comprehensive agreement
based on a salary arrangement and cross-craft multiskilled
practices. The agreement involved the training of craftsmen to
become maintenance technicians and production group technicians.
In relation to shift premia the agreement stated "shift premia
shall be paid in relation to shift working and will vary in
accordance with two shift, three shift, evening shift or
continuous night working arrangements." On 2nd November, 1987,
the first production group technicians commenced a 3 shift
operation in the injection moulding department, under the terms of
the agreement. As 2 shift operations in the Company received a
20% premium, which the Company read as 10% per shift, the Company
followed the same line of reasoning and applied a 30% premium to
the 3 shift operation. The Union believed that a 36% premium,
which was being given to craftsmen, was warranted. Despite
prolonged local discussions agreement could not be reached and the
matter was referred on 14th March, 1989, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation conference held on
25th April, 1989, the Company offered the 3 production group
technicians involved 78 weeks loss of earnings compensation
(#1,795 each), on the basis of the acceptance of 30% as the
premium for 3 shift operation and with the understanding that if
new positions were created in the injection moulding department on
3 shift operation over the next 2 years, compensation would be on
the same basis for those taking up the positions. The Union
rejected the Company's offer. On 26th September, 1989, a further
conciliation conference was held, however, the parties did not
reach any agreement. On 2nd October, 1989, the issue was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 12th December, 1989, in
Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to 1982, fitters, electricians and toolmakers on 3
shift operations enjoyed a 33% premium. From 1982, toolmakers
on 3 shift operations enjoyed a 36% shift premium. In
November, 1987 the 3 production group technicians on 3 shift
operations were given a reduced premium of 30%. As toolmakers
under the 1982 agreement they had enjoyed a 36% premium. This
reduced premium was imposed by the Company without reference
to the workers or Union. This is a breach of the
Company/Union agreement.
2. In the injection moulding department 51 workers are
employed. Of these, only the 3 production group technicians
do not have the 36% shift premium. For 2 weeks the toolmakers
and production group technicians overlapped on shifts, one
with a 36% premium the other with a 30% premium.
3. The Company and Union entered into an agreement which
encompassed a 3 shift system, carrying a 36% premium. This
should be honoured by the Company. The agreement, in its
totality, has far reaching effects both within the Company and
throughout the industry, as it is the first agreement of its
kind. Therefore, it is important that it remains intact. The
Company must not renege on this agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of the conclusion of the 1987 agreement, the
only maintenance technicians and production group technicians
who were working shifts were in the Axis areas, which was the
most technologically advanced area in the factory. They had
been working a 2 shift operation since 1986 and a 20% premium
applied. The Company read this as 10% per shift. When it was
decided in 1987 to make the 3 appointments as production group
technicians in the injection moulding department, the Company
followed the line of reasoning that 10% per shift would yield
a 30% shift premium, which compares well to general industrial
practice. At that time there were no maintenance technicians
or production group technicians on 3 shift operations.
2. The Company maintains that the composite premium of 36%
for craftsmen was bought out over the years. The 3 shift
operation was bought out by a payment of #25,000 to fitters
and electricians in 1983 and a #4,000 payment to toolmakers in
1988. The workers perception of this situation is anomalous,
however, the Company in an effort to settle the matter offered
to deal with the perceived anomaly by offering the 3
production group technicians involved 78 weeks loss of
earnings as compensation, amounting to #1,795 each. The
Company believes this is a reasonable offer.
3. The Company does not agree that a 3 shift premium of 36%
is an established fact within the Company (details supplied to
the Court). The rate of shift premium for 4 shift operating
security staff is 33.3%. The 30% premium for 3 shift
operations applying to the production group technicians
compares favourably with good industrial practices in shift
premia.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the submissions made the Court is of the
opinion that the terms for working of shift were not specifically
changed by any of the agreements negotiated since 1983. The Court
therefore recommends that the Company concede the Union's claim in
respect of 3 shift working.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
10th January, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.