Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9272 Case Number: LCR13621 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - I.C.T.U. TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made at the hearing, and
having particular regard to the fact that in the first instance
the ending of the shifts in question arise from a decline in the
Board's trade, but mainly that the loss is essentially temporary
pending the extension of new work systems in the works concerned,
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9272 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13621
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
and
I.C.T.U. TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT;
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for loss of shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 200 permanent and seasonal
workers who are engaged on the traditional system of milled peat
production at the Company's Boora and Blackwater works. The
production process was carried out on a two cycle shift at these
plants during the months of May and September each year and the
workers received a shift premium of 20% of their rate. In 1989
(following discussions and agreement with the Group of Unions) the
Company introduced new and more competitive enterprise production
systems whereby workers are paid at a piece rate system and the
payment of shift premium is eliminated. The Company plans to
extend the new arrangements to all bogs in due course. In 1990
the Company decided to eliminate shift working in the Boora and
Blackwater bogs. Both are still operating under the traditional
systems. The Union submitted a claim for compensation on behalf
of the workers concerned in the amount of three times the annual
loss of shift premium. Management rejected the claim. The issue
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the 19th
September, 1991. A conciliation conference was held on the 17th
December, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on
the 17th December, 1991. The Court investigated the dispute in
Portlaoise on the 24th March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has effected substantial cost savings at Boora
and Blackwater plants when shift working ceased and production
work was undertaken on a day-work basis. Unlike the
production workers employed in enterprise production areas
(who have a shift premium factor built into their earnings)
the workers concerned, who are involved in the traditional
production process, received no compensation for loss of their
shift premium. The Company has ended shift working which has
traditionally been worked for twenty years and there is little
prospect of its being re-introduced.
2. The workers have suffered a loss of regular earnings (£706
annually) which has and will continue to have an adverse
effect on their income and living standards. Compensation for
loss of regular earnings including shift premium is a well
established precedent and the Labour Court has issued numerous
recommendations in favour of such claims (LCR's 10760, 10830,
11929, 12297, 12318, 12570, 12552, 12634 refer).
3. As the change from shift to day work on milled peat
production has resulted in significant cost savings to the
Company, it is only fair and reasonable that Management should
allocate a share of the savings to off-set the loss sustained
by the workers. The Company has compensated workers for loss
of shift premium and regular earnings in the past and there is
no reason why compensation cannot now be paid to the workers
concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The operational decision to produce on a day work basis
plus overtime at Boora and Blackwater was taken because of a
high level of stock build up and a decline in sales. The
operation of shifts on production has never been guaranteed or
the subject of a Union/Company agreement. Shift premia are
paid to compensate for the unsociable nature of shift working
and are not warranted when shift working is not operating.
Operational decisions on the use of shift working are taken on
a year by year basis and claims based on possible future
decisions cannot be sustained. A poor production year or
depletion of stocks through fire or storm damage for example
could necessitate a restoration of shifts in any year.
2. The Company is operating under severe financial
constraints and Management must be primarily concerned with
cost competitiveness in all spheres of activity. This
position is acknowledged in the Partnership for Progress
Framework agreed with all unions in the Company in 1989 which
led to the introduction of new result-based systems of
production. Other decisions included a major redundancy
programme, shut down of briquette factories for an extended
period, a comprehensive review of all overhead expenditure,
and the flexible lay off of seasonal workers.
3. Notwithstanding the introduction of new systems the
Company cannot ignore the need to be similarly cost
competitive in areas continuing to operate traditional
production systems. The claim if conceded could cost the
Company in the region of £300,000 initially, with further
repercussive claims depending on future operations. It is
neither in the interests of the Company nor the workers that
decisions taken to achieve cost reductions and improve
long-term viability would be negated by the concession of cost
increasing claims such as the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made at the hearing, and
having particular regard to the fact that in the first instance
the ending of the shifts in question arise from a decline in the
Board's trade, but mainly that the loss is essentially temporary
pending the extension of new work systems in the works concerned,
the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
10th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.