Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90556 Case Number: LCR13180 Section / Act: S67 Parties: C.P.M. / EUROPE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning public holiday pay entitlements for eight workers operating a four shift cycle.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, in the light of the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the changes required by the Company in the
pattern of continuous shift working, and the reduction of holiday
payments arising from the corrected computation of these payments
makes the following recommendation:
(1) The days in dispute should be paid in accordance with
custom and practice in the Company.
(2) The Company should make a payment of #400 to each of the
shift workers concerned and in consideration of such
payments the workers should accept the changes for the
future as proposed by the Company in its memorandum dated
20th July, 1990.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90556 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13180
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: C.P.M. / EUROPE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning public holiday pay entitlements for eight
workers operating a four shift cycle.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1975 in Wexford to supply the
European market with dies for animal food machines manufactured at
other Company locations. Under an agreement (details supplied to
the Court) made in 1987 the Company operates a 4 cycle shift
system involving 8 workers (i.e. 2 workers per shift). The shift
period is 12 hours duration with workers on 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and 8
p.m. to 8 a.m. shift rosters. The total holiday entitlement is 23
days per year and the Company has shut-down periods of 3 weeks in
the summer and one week at Christmas (including 25th and 26th
December). The balance of holiday entitlement for the workers
concerned is 3 floating days (rounded off to 3 twelve hour
shifts). The 1987 agreement states that "time worked on statutory
holidays will be paid at double the consolidated rate in addition
to the statutory payment for the holidays." In December, 1989 the
Union made a claim for payment in respect of the two public
holidays (25th and 26th December) which were part of Company's
annual Christmas week shut-down. The Company claims that when it
examined the Union's claim it found that such payment had not been
made in the previous year. The Company states that it also
discovered that it had been overpaying on the other 6 public
holidays during the year (i.e. 6 public holidays at 12 hours).
The Company refused to pay for the two days claimed and the
workers took unofficial industrial action. The matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court and
following a conciliation conference on 18th January, 1990 the
parties agreed to commence immediate discussions on the revision
of the 4 shift system. No agreement was reached at local level on
a new rostering system and the matter was referred on 23rd
February, 1990 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Following a conciliation conference which was held on 18th July,
1990 the Company made a proposal for a new roster on 20th July,
1990 (details supplied to the Court) which was rejected by the
Union. As no agreement could be reached at conciliation the
matter was referred on 17th September, 1990 to a full hearing of
the Labour Court. The Hearing took place in Wexford on 11th
December, 1990 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has operated the 4 shift system since 1987 and
has made payments in respect of public holidays on the basis
of the 4 shift cycle agreement. In late 1989 the Company
decided that its method of calculation for holiday pay was
incorrect and decided to discontinue such payments without
notification, consultation, and agreement with the Union.
Contrary to normal industrial relations procedures in such
circumstances the Company refused to maintain the status quo
in order to allow time for negotiations.
2. The Company's method of payment for public holidays was in
operation for over two years. During that time the Company
did not raise any questions or doubts about its own method of
payment calculation. For the Company to merely decide that
its method was incorrect and cease payments without
consultation is not fair and reasonable.
3. To ensure that no overtime would have to be paid for hours
worked into a public holiday the Company decided to alter the
commencement of a public holiday to 8 a.m. The Company should
not alter the commencement of a public holiday to avoid
payments related to that day. Such payments should be made
from commencement of shift.
4. There are eight recognised public holidays per year but
the Company is apparently seeking to disregard the two public
holidays at Christmas. The Company should make payment in
respect all public holidays without exception and restore
overtime payments when working into public holidays.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to confusion regarding the calculation of payments in
respect of public holidays the Company made overpayments in
1988 and 1989. These overpayments were discovered in late
1989 when a claim for payment was made for the two public
holidays at Christmas. When the Company found that its
method of calculation was incorrect it ceased such payments.
The Union's claim that such payments which were made in error
should continue is unacceptable.
2. The Company accepts that the original roster was open to
mis-interpretation and confusion in regard to public holidays.
However the Company has demonstrated in an explanatory note to
the workers (details supplied to the Court) that, by
maintaining a 42 hour week and giving days off on all public
holidays, it has paid in full for 6 of the 8 annual public
holidays. The Christmas factory shut-down includes the two
other public holidays.
3. Due to the confusion caused by the original roster the
Company has proposed two rosters of greater clarity to prevent
further misunderstanding. The first variation of the roster
guarantees the agreed holiday entitlement and removes the
confusion over our public holidays by simply rostering through
the holiday. The second variation of the roster proposes that
five of the eight annual public holidays will be worked
(excluding 25th December, 26th December and 1st January).
Those rostered on would get an additional payment of 20 hours
and those rostered off would get a payment of eight hours
holiday pay. Both of the proposed variations have been
rejected by the Union. The Company is anxious to put a roster
of greater clarity in place in order to avoid further
misunderstandings.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, in the light of the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the changes required by the Company in the
pattern of continuous shift working, and the reduction of holiday
payments arising from the corrected computation of these payments
makes the following recommendation:
(1) The days in dispute should be paid in accordance with
custom and practice in the Company.
(2) The Company should make a payment of #400 to each of the
shift workers concerned and in consideration of such
payments the workers should accept the changes for the
future as proposed by the Company in its memorandum dated
20th July, 1990.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
8th February, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.