Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93162 Case Number: LCR14065 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Unions, on behalf of 2 workers, for compensation for loss of shift premium.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties on the
issue before it the Court having regard to the circumstances in
which the change is taking place, and having regard to precedents
established within the Company, recommends that the employer's
offer of once the annual loss to the two workers should be
accepted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93162 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14065
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions, on behalf of 2 workers, for compensation
for loss of shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. Labour Court Recommendation 13855 which issued in November,
1992 was accepted by both parties. It recommended that the
Company pay its workforce the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. The Court also recommended that the parties enter
negotiations on new productivity proposals, one of which was the
reduction in washer attendant shift manning levels by 2 workers.
At subsequent local discussions the Unions claimed compensation in
the amount of five times the annual shift premium loss.
Management's offer of once the annual loss was rejected by the
Union. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 3rd February, 1993.
As no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th March,
1993. A Court hearing was held on the 5th April, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 2 workers concerned have been employed on shift work
for nearly twenty years. They will suffer a reduction in
earnings of #54 p.w. as a result of the Company's action.
Their total loss of earnings in the eight years to retirement
age will amount to approximately #22,000. Pension
entitlements will also be reduced.
2. The worker's financial commitments were based on shift
work earnings which will now be significantly reduced. They
are entitled to adequate compensation. At conciliation the
Unions were prepared to accept an absolute minimum of three
times the annual loss. This sum would not pose a financial
strain on the Company, which is profitable and which has
expanded its operation. In a recent similar case the Court
recommended two and one half times the annual loss (LCR 13777
refers).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is insufficient work to keep the 2 employees on
shift. They have been retained, however, in a permanent
capacity in the Company. It is not unusual to take workers
off shift and this has occurred in the Company in recent
times. Similar compensation (once the annual loss) was
offered to workers in these circumstances. This formula was
also recommended by the Court on previous occasions (LCR8384,
AD4191 refer).
2. The Company is labour - intensive and has a heavily laden
production cost structure. It is essential that Management
effects constructive change to combat high unit costs and meet
a major threat from imports. The Company has consistently
maintained employment levels over the past few years while
other Companies have shed jobs. The Company feels that its
offer of compensation while retaining the 2 workers in
permanent employment is fair and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties on the
issue before it the Court having regard to the circumstances in
which the change is taking place, and having regard to precedents
established within the Company, recommends that the employer's
offer of once the annual loss to the two workers should be
accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
3rd May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.