Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92399 Case Number: LCR13725 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TURNEX LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute regarding the loss of shift premium for 3 workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has examined the submissions of the parties and the
oral evidence presented at the hearing. The Court is strongly of
the view that, apart from this particular case, there is an urgent
need for the Company and the Union to negotiate an agreement
regarding coming-off shift. The changing pattern of work
requirements, the viability of the Company, the skills required
and the grading applicable to specific jobs and the necessity for
continuity on particular work should be catered for in the
agreement as should questions of seniority, service, and prospects
of return to shift work. The Court considers that an agreement on
these lines should now be negotiated.
Because of its view as expressed above and specifically as a
once-off arrangement not constituting a precedent, the Court
considers that the Company should make on-going payments to the
claimants (in the order set out in the union's submission) as
follows with effect from the date of this recommendation:-
Claimant "A": 7 months of full shift premium
7 months at half shift premium
payment of shift premium should then
cease.
Claimant "B": With effect from the date on which
he ceases shift-work.
6 months of full shift premium
6 months of half shift premium
payment of shift premium should then
cease.
Claimant "C": 7 months of full shift premium
7 months at half shift premium
payments of shift premium should then
cease.
The Court notes that while payment of shift-premium continued
during the processing of the claim, these payments should not be
regarded by either party as part of a settlement.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92399 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13725
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TURNEX LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding the loss of shift premium for 3 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures turned metal components for the
automotive, hydraulics and mining industries. There are
approximately 40 workers employed.
2. In October, 1991, due to the loss of a contract, 3 workers
were redeployed from shift work to day work. The Company
maintained the shift rate pending agreement on compensation.
The value of the shift work to the workers is as follows:
Time on shift Premium per week
Claimant "A" 14 years #43.43
Claimant "B" 12 years #40.01
Claimant "C" 14 years #40.01
3. The Company sought to buy out the shift premium as it
claimed that it was not practicable for it to provide shift
work for the workers as it would involve the displacement of
other workers. No progress was made in local negotiations and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
4. Conciliation conferences were held on 24th June and 2nd
July, 1992. The Union sought to have the workers returned and
to compensate other workers who could not be assigned to other
shift work. The Company's offer of 6 months shift premium in
addition to what had already been paid while the case was
being processed was rejected by the workers. The parties
requested that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court.
This was done on 7th July, 1992. A Labour Court investigation
took place in Arklow on 28th July, 1992 and a recommendation
issued by letter on 4th August, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking to have the workers returned to shift
work. It has already been proposed that the 3 most junior on
shift be redeployed to accommodate them. It is consistent
with the Company/Union agreement that interchangeability of
workers exists. The Company has a considerable responsibility
to these workers based on their seniority (details supplied).
2. The workers are experienced and their experience makes it
easy for them to move to other shift work. Financial
commitments have been made on the basis of the earnings from
shift-work. A buy-out in these circumstances is a last
resort. If however financial compensation is to be the
solution the Union is seeking a reduction in the premium in
equal sums over a 6 month period in addition to 2 years gross
lump sum to buy out the shift premium from the date of the
recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in extremely competitive markets
where contracts can be switched at a moments notice. The
change from shift work for the workers arises solely from the
loss of a contract and has no benefit to the Company. It is
possible that the workers will work on shift in the future
depending on business requirements. It is not practical for
the Company to transfer shift workers from other areas
(details supplied).
2. The Company cannot afford and is opposed to the
maintenance of shift payments to day workers. The Company's
offer of the equivalent of 11 months buy out of shift premium
is a reasonable and fair offer in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has examined the submissions of the parties and the
oral evidence presented at the hearing. The Court is strongly of
the view that, apart from this particular case, there is an urgent
need for the Company and the Union to negotiate an agreement
regarding coming-off shift. The changing pattern of work
requirements, the viability of the Company, the skills required
and the grading applicable to specific jobs and the necessity for
continuity on particular work should be catered for in the
agreement as should questions of seniority, service, and prospects
of return to shift work. The Court considers that an agreement on
these lines should now be negotiated.
Because of its view as expressed above and specifically as a
once-off arrangement not constituting a precedent, the Court
considers that the Company should make on-going payments to the
claimants (in the order set out in the union's submission) as
follows with effect from the date of this recommendation:-
Claimant "A": 7 months of full shift premium
7 months at half shift premium
payment of shift premium should then
cease.
Claimant "B": With effect from the date on which
he ceases shift-work.
6 months of full shift premium
6 months of half shift premium
payment of shift premium should then
cease.
Claimant "C": 7 months of full shift premium
7 months at half shift premium
payments of shift premium should then
cease.
The Court notes that while payment of shift-premium continued
during the processing of the claim, these payments should not be
regarded by either party as part of a settlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
5th October, 1992 Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.