Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92607 Case Number: LCR13865 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for payment at treble time for employees who work on Public Holidays.
Recommendation:
5. Having studied the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that the Union has established a compelling case for changing the
payment arrangements applying to four cycle 12 hour rotating shift
staff in respect of Public Holidays.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the present payment
arrangements continue unaltered.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92607 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13865
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for payment at treble time for employees
who work on Public Holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. Recently the Company has introduced continuous 4 cycle, 12
hour shift working in the moulding and test areas of the plant.
This system has been in operation in another area since 1983 and
conditions were agreed for the 4 workers involved at that time.
The present payment system provides for the following:-
(a) workers rostered for duty - double time plus 8 hours
pay or 8 hours off in lieu.
(b) workers rostered off duty - 8 hours pay or 8 hours off
in lieu.
The Union's claim is as follows:-
(a) workers rostered for duty - double time plus 12 hours
pay or 12 hours off in lieu.
(b) workers rostered off duty - 12 hours pay or 12 hours
off in lieu.
Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission on the 14th October, 1991. A
conciliation conference was held on the 23rd March, 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 on the 5th November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is a well established practice in industry that
employees who work bank holidays are paid at treble time or
double time plus a day off in lieu. It is reasonable to seek
improvements to an agreement negotiated in 1983. The Union's
claim is not excessive, given that the Company has received a
flexible and positive response from the workforce who have
facilitated maximum plant utilisation and an expansion and
extension of the twelve hour system. Workers have lost
overtime payments as a result.
2. The Union rejects the Company's claim that the claim is
precluded under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.). Clause 3 provides for negotiating changes in
rates/conditions and while it specifies a limit of 3% it does
not exclude claims exceeding 3% having regard to the need for
flexibility, change and the contribution of workers. The
Union has placed no barrier either to the introduction,
operation or extension of 4 cycle 12 hour shifts.
3. The cost of conceding the claim is relatively small to a
company of this size, approximately 960 hours extra per annum
which equates to .4% of payroll.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is an existing agreement in place which provides
32 hours pay for working Public Holidays. Workers also
receive a premium of 33 1/3% to compensate them for the social
inconvenience of 4 cycle shift work. Workers also receive 3
extra days annual leave per annum.
2. A survey of comparable companies has established that
the Company's practice of basing public holiday calculation on
8 hours is normal procedure.
3. The Company has sustained accumulated losses over the
past number of years (details supplied to the Court). There
is keen competition from competitor companies and the Company
cannot pass on the extra cost of this claim.
4. The claim is precluded under the provisions of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having studied the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not consider
that the Union has established a compelling case for changing the
payment arrangements applying to four cycle 12 hour rotating shift
staff in respect of Public Holidays.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the present payment
arrangements continue unaltered.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
20th November, 1992 ------------------
T. O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.