Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9079 Case Number: LCR12766 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WEXAL INTERNATIONAL IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a four cycle shift.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recommends as follows:-
1. Increase in rate of Pay.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
2. Shift Premium.
The Court recommends that the shift premium of 33 1/3% be
applied with effect from the date of introduction of the 4
shift system.
3. Loss of Earnings.
The Court recommends that any loss of earnings be calculated
over a 12 month period from the introduction of the 4 shift
system. The parties, when the loss has been agreed, to meet
and discuss compensation in respect of such loss.
4. Voluntary Severance.
The Court notes the severance package is voluntary and
accordingly recommends that those workers interested in
leaving the Company be permitted to decide if the terms are
acceptable or not.
5. Annual Leave.
The Court recommends that an additional two days annual leave
be given to those workers involved in the four shift system.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9079 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12766
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WEXAL INTERNATIONAL IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a four cycle shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium tubing
and employs 124 workers in its Enniscorthy plant. The plant
operates a three shift cycle. Because of developments in the
Company it is necessary to have an expansion in the extrusion
department where eleven workers are employed. The Company
initially sought to introduce a weekend shift with new employees
but this was not agreed by the Union. The Company then proposed
the introduction of a four cycle shift from February, 1990. Five
new jobs would be provided immediately and the Company offered to
increase the shift premium from 20% to 33 1/3% over a four year
period. This offer was rejected by the Union which countered with
its own proposals (details supplied under "Union's arguments"
heading). No agreement was reached at local level and the matter
was referred on 12th January, 1990 to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 26th
January, 1990 at which the Company offered to phase the premium
payment over two years. No agreement was reached and on 30th
January, 1990 the matter was referred to a full hearing of the
Labour Court which took place on 2nd March, 1990. A Labour Court
recommendation issued by letter on 29th March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are used to working overtime on a
regular basis and working a three cycle shift. The change to
a four cycle shift will involve disturbance and loss of
overtime for the workers concerned. In order to compensate
the workers for the proposed change to a four cycle shift the
Union has made the following proposals:-
(a) An increase in basic weekly pay to #200.00
(b) 33 1/3% shift premium from start of four cycle shift
system.
(c) #1,000.00 compensation for disturbance and potential
loss of overtime.
(d) Voluntary severance package for workers who find the new
system unsuitable.
(e) extra holidays for those on new system.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company intends to enter into new business which will
be low margin, high volume production and must be developed on
the basis of strict cost control. In this context the
Company's response to the Union's claim is as follows:-
(a) The Company sees no justification for an increase in the
basic pay rate. Workers will be compensated for the
introduction of the new system by the increased shift
premium.
(b) The Company is prepared to phase in a 33 1/3% shift
premium within two years instead of four years as
initially offered.
(c) The Company has agreed in principle to offer statutory
redundancy compensation to workers who find the new
system unsuitable.
(d) The Company rejects the claim for disturbance money. In
relation to the claim for loss of overtime the Company's
position is that earnings are likely to rise and that the
issue must be dealt with on the basis of proven loss at
some time in the future. In this context the Company
offered at the conciliation conference a goodwill payment
of #50 gross to each existing employee moving to the new
system.
(e) The Company is prepared to consider the provision of
extra leave for the workers concerned after 1992.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties recommends as follows:-
1. Increase in rate of Pay.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
2. Shift Premium.
The Court recommends that the shift premium of 33 1/3% be
applied with effect from the date of introduction of the 4
shift system.
3. Loss of Earnings.
The Court recommends that any loss of earnings be calculated
over a 12 month period from the introduction of the 4 shift
system. The parties, when the loss has been agreed, to meet
and discuss compensation in respect of such loss.
4. Voluntary Severance.
The Court notes the severance package is voluntary and
accordingly recommends that those workers interested in
leaving the Company be permitted to decide if the terms are
acceptable or not.
5. Annual Leave.
The Court recommends that an additional two days annual leave
be given to those workers involved in the four shift system.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___11th___May,____1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman