Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92438 Case Number: LCR13919 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Interpretation of an agreement.
Recommendation:
5. Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not
consider that the Union has established its claim regarding the
correct method of calculation of shift overtime under the terms of
the 1984 agreement. In the circumstances, the Court recommends
that the Union accept the Company proposal to pay for planned
overtime at the consolidated rate and for shift-cover at basic
rate, as being an equitable final solution to the issue.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92438 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13919
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Interpretation of an agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns electricians who are employed by the
Company, at its plant in Scariff, Co. Clare. When the Company
took over the factory from Chipboard Products Limited (then in
recevership) in 1984 it was agreed that the employees' terms and
conditions of employment would be those which applied to their
employment with Chipboard Products Limited. The present dispute
concerns the interpretation of that agreement in relation to the
basic pay used when calculating overtime payments. The Union
claims that basic pay means basic rate plus shift premium and that
this consolidated rate should attract the overtime premium of 50%.
Management rejected the claim and stated that this method of
calculation had never been used. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission on the 9th December, 1991. A
conciliation conference was held on the 26th June, 1992 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 27th July, 1992.
The Court investigated the dispute in Limerick on the 29th
September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the closure of Chipboard Products Limited the
basic rates applying to electricians were as follows:-
Electrical N.J.I.C. rate plus 10%. This rate was also
enhanced by a 25% shift premium for those on shift. During
negotiations with the management of Finsa, it was agreed that
the new rates applying to all electricians in the Company
would be the consolidated rates which applied before Finsa
Products took over and that the rates would be increased by
the Consumer Price Index less 3% from June 1985 to June 1986.
2. The logic of applying the consolidated rate for overtime
is unbuilt in the continuous shift system because overtime is
a feature of this type of working. Management accepts that
consolidated rates apply in Companies in the region.
3. The Union did not react previously to the Company's non
implementation of the agreement because over the years,
workers were primarily concerned for the security of their
employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The method of calculating overtime on the basis of basic
rate and adding shift premium for hours worked has always been
applied in the Company both before 1983 and after 1984. The
Union's claim that the consolidated rate applied traditionally
is not correct. The accountant who worked for both the old
and new companies confirms that she continued with the same
calculation methods as had applied in earlier years. The 1984
Agreement clearly refers to basic pay in the calculation of
overtime. There is no reference to the consolidation of the
shift premium, as this would not have reflected the norms in
the old Company. It should be noted that the issue was never
raised as a grievance prior to 1990, despite the fact that
consolidation had not applied since 1984 (or before that
time).
2. In November, 1990 the Company concluded a three year
wage agreement which gave workers at Finsa increases
considerably greater than those applying throughout the
private sector. The Company accepts that the Union reserved
its position on consolidation. Concession of a cost
increasing claim would undermine the wage agreement with other
unions in the Company. The Company proposed a compromise at
discussion on wage rounds in 1990, which was accepted by
another union. This provides for the application of the
consolidated rate to planned overtime outside of shift cover.
This was the best offer the Company could make in the context
of an already generous wage agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not
consider that the Union has established its claim regarding the
correct method of calculation of shift overtime under the terms of
the 1984 agreement. In the circumstances, the Court recommends
that the Union accept the Company proposal to pay for planned
overtime at the consolidated rate and for shift-cover at basic
rate, as being an equitable final solution to the issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
12th January, 1993 -----------------
T.O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.