Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95218 Case Number: LCR14874 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OFFRAY RIBBONS LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Disputes concerning (a) Payment of overtime, (b) Sick-pay, (c) Compensation for 3 day week (d) Salary scales.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
presented by both parties finds as follows:-
PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME:
Where the Company can show that the salary paid to individuals was
adjusted for weekend overtime working, or that it was part of the
initial contract, the individuals should work the overtime without
extra payment.
Given the infrequent requirement for weekend overtime, individuals
not covered by the salary situation above should be paid time and
.50 for Saturday and double time for Sunday.
SICK-PAY:
The Union concerns in relation to possible victimisation of the
supervisory group, through the sick pay scheme in the future was
responded to by the Company. The Company's undertaking to
continue its current arrangements was taken by the Court as a
commitment for the future. The Court does not therefore propose
any changes to the sick-pay scheme.
COMPENSATION FOR 3 DAY WEEK:
The Union's claim that the Company's decision, contrary to
previous practice to reduce the Supervisory Group to 3 day working
was a response to their joining the Union, does not appear to be
justified.
Indeed, it was accepted by the Union in response to the Company
that the work requirements and working arrangements were different
on this occasion.
SALARY SCALES:
The Company made the point that the salaries of production
supervisors, agreed on joining the Company included shift premium
and overtime. As in the Recommendation on weekend overtime, the
Court recommends that where this arrangement was not part of the
salary contract the shift premium should be increased.
On the issue of the discontinuation of the bonus payment to this
group the Company did not refute the Union's view that this was as
a result of the group joining the Union.
The Court's view is that while it is the Company's prerogative to
decide who gets bonus payments it does appear that this group were
penalised.
The Court recommends that this issue should be discussed between
the parties with a view to arriving at an acceptable position.
Finally
The Court is concerned that the atmosphere that prevails between
this group and the Company cannot be good for the business. The
Court is also very concerned that this group has failed to
implement the Labour Court Recommendation on weekend working.
The Court would urge both parties to find ways of improving the
working relationships in the interest of all concerned.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95218 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14874
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
OFFRAY RIBBONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Disputes concerning (a) Payment of overtime,
(b) Sick-pay,
(c) Compensation for 3 day week
(d) Salary scales.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claims are on behalf of 5 shift supervisors. The
workers joined the Union in December, 1992. The Union
was recognised by the Company in June, 1994. The
workers are employed on an 8 hour, 5 day, 3 cycle shift.
The Company manufactures ribbon and ribbon based
products for both European and American markets. It
employs 160 workers.
2. (a) Payment of overtime
The workers are required to work overtime on Saturdays,
on average 4/5 times per year. Since May, 1993 the
workers have refused to work Saturday overtime without
pay. The workers claim that Saturday overtime was paid
prior to 1990. The Company claims that the workers'
actions are in contravention of the Company's policies
and of LCR14403 (details supplied). The Company offered
the workers time off in lieu but this was unacceptable.
3. (b) Sick-pay
The Company operates a sick-pay scheme at its own
discretion. The Union is seeking to formalise the
scheme with a sick-pay period of 6 months.
4. (c) Compensation for 3 day week
In 1993, all production workers were put on short-time
working from May to July. The Union claims that the
workers were put on short-time because they had joined
the Union. The Union is seeking #700 compensation per
worker.
5. (d) Salary scales
The Union is seeking a 5% increase in the workers' shift
premium which is incorporated in their salary scales.
This is a catch up claim on the production workers whose
shift premium was increased by 5% in 1992. The Union
also claims that the workers received an annual bonus
prior to their joining the Union. The Union is seeking
a #1,000 increase in salary to consolidate the bonus
into salary.
6. The claims were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on
17th January and 9th February, 1995. Although progress
was made at conciliation, it was not possible to resolve
all the claims. On 30th March, 1995 the claims were
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated
the claims in Limerick on 22nd June, 1995 (the earliest
date available to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. (a) Payment of overtime
Up to 1990 the workers were paid for overtime. This was
withdrawn unilaterally by the Company. Overtime is
required when the Company is increasing production. All
production workers are paid overtime. The Company has
offered the workers time off in lieu. It should pay the
appropriate overtime rates as the workers are unwilling
to work overtime on the basis proposed by the Company.
2. (b) Sick-pay scheme
The Company has refused to give a commitment in relation
to the length of time for which they will provide
sick-pay. The Union is concerned that the workers may
be victimised by having their sick-pay restricted. The
claim is for a minimum sick-pay period of 6 months.
3. (c) Compensation for 3 day week
The decision to put the workers on short-time in 1993
was taken for a number of reasons unrelated to the
business needs of the Company (details supplied). At
the time the Company was refusing to recognise the
workers' Union. Prior to this the workers were never
put on short-time. The Company's decision cost the
workers #700 net per person.
4. (d) Salary scales
Salary increases for the workers have always been dealt
with on an individual and private basis. The workers
received no increase in 1994 and a 5% increase in
January, 1995. The standard premium for 3 shift working
is 25%. The workers are entitled to an immediate
increase of 5% to bring their shift premium into line.
In addition, the workers have not received an annual
bonus since they became unionised. The Union is seeking
that salary scales reflect the fact that a bonus payment
is part of the normal remuneration package for
supervisors. The Union is seeking a salary increase of
#1,000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. (a) Payment of overtime
Since May, 1993, the workers have operated a Saturday
overtime ban contrary to good industrial relations
practice, the Company/Union Agreement and a Labour Court
Recommendation (details supplied). The Company only
requires the workers to work on Saturdays infrequently
and prior to 1993, it was the custom and practice for
the workers to do so. This constituted an implied term
and condition of employment with the Company. The
Company, in a break with policy, has offered to pay time
off in lieu but this offer has been rejected. The
workers are part of the management team.
2. (b) Sick-pay scheme
The Company has always paid sick-pay at its absolute
discretion and it does not forsee the need to formalise
such arrangements. The Union has acknowledged that none
of its members have been unfairly treated regarding the
payment of sick-pay. Concession of the claim could have
repercussive effects from other categories (details
supplied).
3. (c) Compensation for 3 day week
In 1993, the Company was forced to implement a
rationalisation programme which resulted in short-time
working and 8 redundancies. Despite depressed sales and
financial difficulties, none of the supervisors were
made redundant. In the circumstances of the short-time
working, it is unreasonable of the Union to seek
compensation for loss of earnings.
4. (d) Salary scales
The Company operates a very competitive salary and
remuneration package. The Company has always dealt
directly with each individual member of management on
matters relating to remuneration and terms and
conditions of employment. The workers' salaries
(details supplied) were agreed when they joined the
Company and are inclusive of shift premium and overtime.
The Company cannot justify any adjustment to the
salaries of the workers in excess of the 5% increase
paid in January, 1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
presented by both parties finds as follows:-
PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME:
Where the Company can show that the salary paid to individuals was
adjusted for weekend overtime working, or that it was part of the
initial contract, the individuals should work the overtime without
extra payment.
Given the infrequent requirement for weekend overtime, individuals
not covered by the salary situation above should be paid time and
.50 for Saturday and double time for Sunday.
SICK-PAY:
The Union concerns in relation to possible victimisation of the
supervisory group, through the sick pay scheme in the future was
responded to by the Company. The Company's undertaking to
continue its current arrangements was taken by the Court as a
commitment for the future. The Court does not therefore propose
any changes to the sick-pay scheme.
COMPENSATION FOR 3 DAY WEEK:
The Union's claim that the Company's decision, contrary to
previous practice to reduce the Supervisory Group to 3 day working
was a response to their joining the Union, does not appear to be
justified.
Indeed, it was accepted by the Union in response to the Company
that the work requirements and working arrangements were different
on this occasion.
SALARY SCALES:
The Company made the point that the salaries of production
supervisors, agreed on joining the Company included shift premium
and overtime. As in the Recommendation on weekend overtime, the
Court recommends that where this arrangement was not part of the
salary contract the shift premium should be increased.
On the issue of the discontinuation of the bonus payment to this
group the Company did not refute the Union's view that this was as
a result of the group joining the Union.
The Court's view is that while it is the Company's prerogative to
decide who gets bonus payments it does appear that this group were
penalised.
The Court recommends that this issue should be discussed between
the parties with a view to arriving at an acceptable position.
Finally
The Court is concerned that the atmosphere that prevails between
this group and the Company cannot be good for the business. The
Court is also very concerned that this group has failed to
implement the Labour Court Recommendation on weekend working.
The Court would urge both parties to find ways of improving the
working relationships in the interest of all concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.