Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90378 Case Number: AD9045 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS EUROPE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 25/90, concerning the shift premium for 8 Cleaning and Overhaul workers.
Recommendation:
5. At the hearing, the Company drew the attention of the Court to
the fact that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation was related
to the working of a 12 hour shift whereas the shift involved is in
fact a ten hour shift. The Company also showed that a number of
companies used as comparators by the Union were in fact operating
rotating shifts and were not therefore directly comparable.
Additional information was also supplied to the Court in respect
of wage agreements over the past few years which were in excess of
the P.N.R. and provided for productivity increases, acceptance of
change and no cost increasing claims.
In light of the additional evidence presented, the Court considers
the Company appeal to be well founded and so upholds it.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90378 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4590
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: UNIFI TEXTURED YARNS EUROPE LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
No. S.T. 25/90, concerning the shift premium for 8 Cleaning and
Overhaul workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Cleaning and Overhaul (C.& O) operation commenced in 1984
on a normal day basis - 8.30 a.m. to 5.15 p.m. Monday to Friday.
Due to production requirements it soon became necessary to work
overtime in the mornings from 7.00 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. to get
machines cleaned and back into production earlier than had been
the case. As this early start would be a constant requirement, an
agreement was reached with the Union that the C.&O. operatives
would work a 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. shift system from Monday to
Friday, for which a 12% premium would be paid. (Two operatives
worked a rotating shift of 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. to
11.00 p.m. These two operatives were graded as instructors and
received a 17.5% premium). In January, 1990, the shift system was
changed to 7.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Monday to Thursday (i.e. a 4 day
x 10 hour shift as opposed to a 5 day x 8 hour shift). The shift
premium remained at 12%. The Union claimed that this type of
shift should attract a 20% premium. The Company declined to
increase the premium. The C.&O. operators agreed to operate the
new shift system pending the outcome of a Rights Commissioner's
investigation. On 27th June, 1990, the Rights Commissioner issued
the following recommendation:-
"Much play has been made by the Company in relation to the
fact that the claimants agreed/opted to go on to this shift.
However I agree with the Union argument that all shift
working is compulsory under agreement. I think it a very
dangerous precedent to stray away from this principle given
the culture which exists at the plant.
The Company has not shown where a premium of 12% is paid for
12 hour shift working whereas the Union has pointed to 12
Companies paying 20% and some of them are located in the
western region.
In all the circumstances I feel there is merit in the claim
but not that much that would merit a 20% premium as the
shift must be the least demanding socially of all 12 hour
shifts I am aware of in industry.
In all the circumstances I recommend that the shift pattern
should attract a premium of 15%".
The Company rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
on 4th July, 1990, appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 26th September, 1990, in Letterkenny.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new shift system is less unsocial than the previous
one. It also provides an opportunity for the working of
overtime on Fridays. The Company believe that 12% is a fair
and equitable premium for this shift system and is far in
excess of what most employers would pay.
2. The Company already works a staggered day shift for
which a 16.66% premium is paid. This is a 12 hour shift which
entails working every 2nd weekend. It is a lot more
anti-social that the C.&O. shift. It is imperative that the
relativity between premia be maintained.
3. At the Rights Commissioner hearing the Union emphasised
that it was a fixed shift system and produced a list of other
employers who were paying a 20% premium for fixed shift
systems. The hours for which these other employers pay such a
premium are 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m. This is not comparing
like with like.
4. Over the last 5 years the Company has paid wage
increases in excess of the norm. This was paid for
productivity improvements, agreement to co-operate with
on-going change and improvements in efficiency. The goodwill
element of changing to this 7.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. system has
already been paid for and does not warrant any further
payment.
5. There was some confusion in the Rights Commissioner's
mind when he was making his recommendation as he mentions a 12
hour shift on several occasions. It would appear that he did
not appreciate that it was a 10 hour shift that was in
operation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company base their case for refusing an increase on
the assertion that the new shift is less unsocial. It is not
a simple as that. Under the old system, 7 C.&O. operatives
worked 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. and 2 operatives worked on a
rotating basis 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. to 11.00
p.m. This man helped to clean up and thread the machines.
Under the new system all operatives begin cleaning and
threading from 3.00 p.m. onwards so the machines are fully
operational by 5.00 p.m. as opposed to 11.00 p.m. under the
old system. This represents a considerable productivity
increase for the Company. The Company have 5 or 6 hours extra
production.
2. It is standard practice for companies operating fixed
shift to pay a 20% premium. At the Rights Commissioner's
hearing the Union gave examples of companies paying a 20%
premium (also provided to the Court) and the examples were not
questioned by the Company.
3. The new shift system results in an overtime saving for
the Company because 1 or 2 operatives were retained on
overtime to assist in cleaning and threading after 3.00 p.m.
4. The original shift systems was 8 hours and the new shift
is 10 hours. There is added pressure on the operatives as a
result of the increase in the length of the shift.
5. The operatives support the measures to increase
productivity and cut costs but believe that this should be
done on he basis of sharing the accrued financial gains.
DECISION:
5. At the hearing, the Company drew the attention of the Court to
the fact that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation was related
to the working of a 12 hour shift whereas the shift involved is in
fact a ten hour shift. The Company also showed that a number of
companies used as comparators by the Union were in fact operating
rotating shifts and were not therefore directly comparable.
Additional information was also supplied to the Court in respect
of wage agreements over the past few years which were in excess of
the P.N.R. and provided for productivity increases, acceptance of
change and no cost increasing claims.
In light of the additional evidence presented, the Court considers
the Company appeal to be well founded and so upholds it.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
22nd October, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman