Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94466 Case Number: LCR14649 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: HOLLISTER OVERSEAS LTD - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION |
Shift payment.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court is satisfied
that the Union's interpretation of Clause 21 of the agreement
between the parties is correct and accordingly should be upheld.
The Court is therefore recommending payment of the shift premium
as claimed, at present, and is doing so solely on the basis of the
above mentioned agreement.
In view of the additional information concerning the company's
position vis a vis its parent, the Court further recommends that
the overall Company Union Agreement, which was re-negotiated in
the early part of 1994, be re-negotiated to see if agreement on a
change to the premium for fixed, non rotating shift, can be
reached.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94466 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14649
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: HOLLISTER OVERSEAS LTD
and
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Shift payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. Hollister Overseas Ltd in a U.S. based Company which was set
up in Ireland in 1976. It currently employs approximately 198
workers in the manufacture of medical/surgical products for the
European market. The workers concerned in the dispute are
employed by the Company as maintenance craftworkers.
3. From the late 1970s to 1990, craft maintenance workers
operated a two cycle shift rota (days/lates). A 20% premium
applied to both shifts. In early 1990 as part of a major
rationalisation programme all operations were consolidated on day
shift. All employees who came off shift received compensation
payments equivalent to six months loss of shift pay.
4. In June, 1994 the Company announced that in order to meet
market demands a late shift (16.30 to 24.00) was required. The
Company proposed that the craft workers provide cover for the late
shift on a fixed shift basis with the 20% premium applying to that
shift only. The Union claims that the appropriate operation is
that which existed prior to 1990.
5. As an interim measure the Company agreed to a rotating shift,
until the issue was dealt with through procedures.
6. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 28th July, 1994. As no
agreement was reached the dispute was referred by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court on 6th September, 1994 in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd November, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 21 of the Company/Union agreement clearly
envisages rotational shift as the norm. The workers concerned
offered, in accordance with the agreement, to operate a two
cycle shift rota system similar to that which operated prior
to 1990.
2. Since 1990 the Company/Union agreement has been
re-negotiated on two occasions. In March, 1994 negotiations
on a new agreement commenced. These negotiations have been
completed. The Company has achieved major concessions from
the workers. At no time did it propose to re-negotiate the
shift clause.
3. It is unacceptable to the workers that the Company
attempt to impose a 20% pay cut.
4. The Company's agreement with production workers provides
for fixed shift working. As the main body of production
workers are female this type of shift is considered socially
acceptable. That particular agreement is no basis for the
Company to attempt to undermine the terms of its agreement
with the craft workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is satisfied that under the Company/Union
agreement it has a right to introduce a fixed late shift and
to require employees to operate this shift as a condition of
employment. The 20% premium payable in respect of this shift
is as good if not better than the norm applying in industry
generally.
2. The Company is facing severe cost pressures both from
other manufacturers within Europe and from its own operations
in the U.S.. In recent Company/Union negotiations these
competitive realities have been emphasised. The Company has
agreed to pay increases, over and above the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work, in the context of work practice
changes required to improve the efficiency of the business.
3. Two cycle shiftwork represents an unacceptable and
unnecessary additional cost. It makes shift operations
uncompetitive in relation to the Company's sister plants in
the U.S..
4. It is essential, for the future success of the Company
and for the employment security of the workers concerned, that
customers requirements are met without delay.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court is satisfied
that the Union's interpretation of Clause 21 of the agreement
between the parties is correct and accordingly should be upheld.
The Court is therefore recommending payment of the shift premium
as claimed, at present, and is doing so solely on the basis of the
above mentioned agreement.
In view of the additional information concerning the company's
position vis a vis its parent, the Court further recommends that
the overall Company Union Agreement, which was re-negotiated in
the early part of 1994, be re-negotiated to see if agreement on a
change to the premium for fixed, non rotating shift, can be
reached.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
23rd December, 1994 ____________
F.B./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD ADDRESSED TO
MR FRAN BRENNAN, COURT SECRETARY.