Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93423 Case Number: LCR14264 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THERMOS KING EUROPE - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given consideration to the submissions from the
parties and the detailed information sought and subsequently
furnished. The Court recommends as follows for the three groups
of workers as set out in the agreed list forwarded under cover
letters October, 1993.
(A) The proposed formula for payment of compensation
emanating from the second conciliation conference
would be varied as follows:-
0-12 months on shift Nil payment
12-36 months on shift 9 months compensation
over 36 months on shift 18 months compensation
(B) Those employees coming off the permanent evening
shift on to day work together with those day
workers in receipt of the shift premium to be
compensated by reference to the revised formula.
(C) The formula would not apply to those day workers
who had a potential to shift work.
(D) Temporary workers would not receive any
compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93423 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14264
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: THERMO KING EUROPE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates 2 shifts (day and evening). All
evening shift workers receive a 20% shift premium. A
mechanism exists whereby an evening shift worker can swop with
a day shift worker for social or other reasons. This is known
as a "swing shift" and for the duration of the swop both
workers receive the shift premium of 20%. The arrangement is
informal and the workers are obliged to arrange their own
swops.
2. The evening shift has been discontinued by the Company.
The Union claimed for compensation of 3 years' loss because of
the discontinuation of the shift premium. The claim is on
behalf of all the evening shift workers and day shift workers
who operate the swing shift. The Company is prepared to offer
some compensation to workers on the permanent evening shift
but is not prepared to compensate day workers who operated a
swing shift arrangement.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 23rd
March and 5th May, 1993. At the second conciliation
conference the Company made the following offer which was
rejected by the Union:-
(a) "Permanent evening shift workers being displaced:-
(i) less than 12 months on shift - NIL
(ii) 12 months to 36 months on shift - 6 months
compensation
(iii) over 36 months on shift - 12 months
compensation.
(b) Swing shift - no compensation
(c) the option of swing shifts to be discontinued
immediately
(d) 8 weeks notice of discontinuation of shift working
to to be given in future and where full notice
given, no compensation; if notice is less than 8
weeks, the balance of the 8 weeks will be paid as
compensation".
4. As the dispute was not resolved through conciliation it
was referred to the Labour Court on 12th July, 1993 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 18th August, 1993 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The decision to discontinue the evening shift not only
affects the evening shift workers but also those who alternate
between the day and evening shift (details supplied). All
workers suffer an equal loss and must be compensated. The
Company is only willing to consider compensating the permanent
evening shift workers, even though the loss of the 20% premium
will affect both categories of workers.
2. Workers will have to review their financial commitments
which have been based on the continued receipt of the 20%
premium. The Union's claim for 3 times the annual loss is
reasonable when viewed against the disruption caused to
workers and the savings which will accrue to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has continued to pay the premium to the
displaced workers. Reasonable compensation has been proposed
for permanent evening shift workers (details supplied). The
Company's offer is in line with Labour Court Recommendations
for this type of loss of earnings. In the circumstances of
continued payment of the premium, the Company's offer is
generous.
2. The evening shift has been discontinued because of a drop
in the level of business. All evening shift workers have been
accommodated on the day shift and no redundancies have taken
place. The Company is not prepared to compensate the day
workers who periodically worked the evening shift on a swop
basis. The day workers who swopped were only paid the 20%
premium when they actually did the swop and not because of
their availability to do the swop. This arrangement was
brought in at the request of the Union and costs the Company
more than a conventional shift arrangement (details supplied).
The Company should not now be penalised by this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given consideration to the submissions from the
parties and the detailed information sought and subsequently
furnished. The Court recommends as follows for the three groups
of workers as set out in the agreed list forwarded under cover
letters October, 1993.
(A) The proposed formula for payment of compensation
emanating from the second conciliation conference
would be varied as follows:-
0-12 months on shift Nil payment
12-36 months on shift 9 months compensation
over 36 months on shift 18 months compensation
(B) Those employees coming off the permanent evening
shift on to day work together with those day
workers in receipt of the shift premium to be
compensated by reference to the revised formula.
(C) The formula would not apply to those day workers
who had a potential to shift work.
(D) Temporary workers would not receive any
compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
-------------
29th November, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.