Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95473 Case Number: LCR15022 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COMER INTERNATIONAL (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning holiday entitlement for workers on "E" shift.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions the Court recommends that the
principle of "pro-rata" holiday entitlement be applied to the E
shift from leave year 1996 and this principle should also apply to
Public Holidays.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95473 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15022
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
COMER INTERNATIONAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning holiday entitlement for workers on "E"
shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures yarn and employs 140 workers. It
operates five shifts as follows:-
A shift (40 hours) Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.
B shift (40 hours) Monday - Friday 4 p.m. - midnight
C shift (40 hours) Monday - Friday Midnight - 8 a.m.
D shift (32 hours) Saturday 8 a.m. - Saturday midnight
E shift (16 hours) Saturday midnight - Sunday 4 p.m.
plus on-call for weekdays for holiday, sickness cover.
The Union's claim, on behalf of the 16 workers on E shift, is
for holiday entitlements, both public and annual leave days,
on a pro-rata basis to full time workers. Management
rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held
on the 14th June, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 14th August, 1995. A Court
hearing was held in Kilkenny on the 29th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Employees on the D shift (32 hours) receive pro-rata
holidays to those working a 40 hour week. The hourly
rate of pay is 1/40th so there is no benefit at all to
the E shift from implementation of the 39 hour week.
Full holiday entitlement for E shift workers should be
half that of D shift. The result would be 83.2 hours
annual leave for E shift (i.e. half of D shifts 166.4
hours). There should be pro-rata application of
holidays where hours above the normal E shift are worked
i.e., one hour of holiday for each nine hours worked.
2. The Union seeks pro-rata reduction in holidays where
insufficient hours are worked. Presently if an E shift
worker misses one week's work (16 hours) his/her holiday
entitlement is reduced by 8 hours. This is unfair and
inequitable. The other shifts have scope to miss time
without adversely affecting their full holiday
entitlement. E shift workers are entitled to the same
treatment.
3. Public holidays should be on the basis of 8 hours for
each of the 9 public holidays. A day's work in Comer
Mills is clearly an 8 hour shift.
4. Concession of the Union's claim would have the effect of
replacing the Company's inequitable and complicated
method of calculation, with a fair and simple system
based fully on the pro-rata principle which has been
endorsed by the Court in previous recommendations, and
which is practised and agreed in the Company in respect
of other shifts.
5. The Union gave significant co-operation to the Company
in the introduction of the E shift and production has
improved. The Company has also had a reduction in
costs. The workers concerned are on-call without any
call-out allowance, cover through the week without any
time and a half or double time for overtime, and optimum
weekly production of 168 hours. They are entitled to be
treated fairly and equitably.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The E shift was established as an integral part of
negotiations for a reduction in the working week under
the PNR. 20 new jobs were created at the time. All the
terms and conditions applying to E shift were agreed as
part of the package at the time including leave
arrangements. This included a shift premium of 50% for
weekend working.
2. The agreed method to reduce working hours for
established staff was the granting of 6 additional days.
"D" shift had been in existence for many years and had
an established pro-rata arrangements with full time
staff (A, B and C shifts), hence part of the agreement
at the time was to apply the additional days to "D"
shift on a pro-rata basis.
3. The leave entitlements presently in existence in respect
of E shift were agreed as part of the same package
introducing the shorter week. They are reasonable and
are well in excess of those provided under annual leave
legislation for part time workers i.e., 6 hours per 100
worked which equates to under 50 hours in this case. E
shift workers have the facility to work additional hours
by taking up available mid-week hours and thereby accrue
additional leave.
4. The agreement establishing E shift provided that Public
Holidays would be taken in accordance with the Holidays
(Employees) Act, 1973 meaning that entitlement would
arise when 120 hours were worked in the 5 week period
leading up to the Public Holiday. The Company applies a
very reasonable pro-rata basis to that applying to the D
shift (which works to 32 hours per week). D shift
receive 8 hours for the Public Holiday, E shift receive
pro-rata to this amount i.e., 4 hours.
5. The arrangements agreed in respect of E shift were fully
understood and accepted at the time of its introduction.
The arrangements both for annual leave and Public
Holidays are equitable, given the part time nature of
the shift. They represent a reasonable and well
accepted interpretation of current legislation. The
claim is cost increasing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions the Court recommends that the
principle of "pro-rata" holiday entitlement be applied to the E
shift from leave year 1996 and this principle should also apply to
Public Holidays.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D/.D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.