Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92603 Case Number: LCR13867 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SNAPTITE EUROPE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for an increase in shift premia rates.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Company have entered the first Phase
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
In these circumstances it is the view of the Court that given the
provisions of the Programme, to seek to address this claim at this
time is not appropriate.
The Court notes the Company has not yet implemented the pay
provisions of the Programme and would recommend that this be done
immediately with payment being effected from the due date.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92603 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13867
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SNAPTITE EUROPE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATON OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an increase in shift premia rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of hose couplings
for the automotive industry. It employs 50 workers and operates a
three shift cycle. The current shift premia paid by the Company
are as follows:
2 shift - 20%
3 shift - 16.66%
Permanent nights - 30%
In June, 1991 the Union submitted a claim for improvement in shift
premia rates as follows:
2 shift - 20%
3 shift - 25%
Permanent Nights - 33 1/3%
Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission on the 16th March, 1992. A
conciliation conference was held on the 1st July, 1992 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 30th September,
1992. A Court hearing was held in Wexford on the 11th November,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The Company/Union agreement expired in December, 1991.
Since June, 1991, the Union has sought to improve the shift
premia rates because they are out of line with comparable
employments in the region. It is reasonable that the Union
should seek to amend an agreement which is presently under
review. The Company should pay the workers concerned shift
premia rates in line with those obtaining in industry
generally.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's rates of pay and conditions compare very
favourably with other employments in the region. The Company
operates a profit sharing scheme and a pension scheme. It is
prepared to honour the terms of P.E.S.P.. The claim for an
increase in shift premia is a cost increasing claim and is
precluded under the P.E.S.P..
2. The Union should not select one item from the overall
package of conditions in order to substantiate its claim. The
shift premia represent only one item in a very good and
comprehensive package of pay and conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the Company have entered the first Phase
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
In these circumstances it is the view of the Court that given the
provisions of the Programme, to seek to address this claim at this
time is not appropriate.
The Court notes the Company has not yet implemented the pay
provisions of the Programme and would recommend that this be done
immediately with payment being effected from the due date.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
30th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.