Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94176 Case Number: LCR14448 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: A.O. SMITH ELECTRIC MOTORS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Payment of the appropriate rate of shift premium.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has
concluded that the Company's interpretation of the Company/Union
agreement is correct and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly does not recommend in favour of concession
of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94176 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14448
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
A.O. SMITH ELECTRIC MOTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Payment of the appropriate rate of shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 150 workers in the
manufacture of electric motors for export to the
refrigeration and air-conditioning industries in both Europe
and North America.
The three workers concerned in this dispute are employed by
the Company as maintenance workers. Prior to September, 1993
their hours of employment were as follows:-
Week one - late shift (2.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.)
basic plus one-sixth of shift premium paid.
Week two - days (8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) basic plus
one-twelfth of shift premium paid.
Week three - days (8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) basic plus
one-twelfth of shift premium paid.
In September, 1993 the Company sought the following changes
in working hours:-
Week one - days (8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) one-twelfth
shift premium paid.
Week two - early (6.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.) basic plus
one-sixth of shift premium paid.
Week three - late (2.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.) basic plus
one-sixth of shift premium paid.
While the workers agreed to operate the new pattern of
working hours they claimed that the day work element (week
one) should carry a payment of one-sixth of shift premium.
The Company rejected the claim.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 21st January, 1994, but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 21st March, 1994, under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 4th May, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company changed the workers hours of attendance.
They are now employed on permanent rotating shift and
should be paid basic pay plus one-sixth for all hours
worked as per Company/Union agreement. Clause 13 of the
agreement provides for basic payment plus one-sixth for
permanent rotating shift.
2. The Company is out of line with industry generally where
basic pay plus shift premia of approximately one-sixth
is normally paid to shift workers rotating on two or
more shifts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is a condition of employment that workers are
available to work shift patterns. Clause 12 of the
Company/Union agreement states that shift patterns may
vary and that shift work may operate on either a
permanent or rotating basis as the Company requires.
2. Day-work is clearly defined as being work performed
bwtween 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.. There is no premium
payment attached for day-work. Clause 13 of the
agreement states that rotation between shift and
day-work, carries a one-sixth premium and a one-twelfth
premium.
3. An unconditional claim for a one-sixth payment for
day-work and a rotating pattern of hours, is in breach
of the Company/Union agreement and represents a serious
cost-increasing claim which will undermine the Company's
competitive position. Such a claim is prohibited under
the Programme for Competitiveness and Work which has
applied since 1st January, 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has
concluded that the Company's interpretation of the Company/Union
agreement is correct and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly does not recommend in favour of concession
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd May, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.