Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95124 Case Number: LCR14706 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: VEHA RADIATORS LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning shift premium rate.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions finds that there is an
acceptance by both parties that there is a need to fully
co-operate with change in an endeavour to maintain and secure the
employment and grow the Company.
The court notes that agreements will be maintained in accordance
with the May agreement and that the parties are making progress in
negotiating a single comprehensive agreement for the future.
The dispute before the Court refers to the fixed evening shift
introduced by the Company and the premium to be paid for this
shift. It is the view of the Court that the premium for this
shift should be 17%.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95124 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14706
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
VEHA RADIATORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning shift premium rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 90 workers. The Company
was taken over by the Barlo Group in April, 1994. Management
proposes to operate a fixed evening shift from 4-12 p.m. over
five days at a shift premium rate of 15%. The Union rejects
the Company's proposal and is claiming a rate of 25%. Local
discussions failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on the 26th January, 1995 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 16th
February, 1995. The Court investigated the dispute on 3rd
March, 1995. A letter recommendation was issued on the 9th
March 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union Agreement of 1992 stipulates that
shift premium is paid at the rate of 25%. In May, 1994
following the acquisition of the Company by the Barlo
Group, Management assured the workforce that existing
agreements would be honoured. The Union agreed to
changes in work practices and to a number of
redundancies.
2. The Company at no stage sought a reduction in the agreed
shift premium of 25%. Its proposal for a continuous
evening shift with very unsociable hours can only be
accepted if the 25% premium is paid.
3. The workers concerned have agreed to operate the shift
at 15% premium pending the outcome of the Labour Court
hearing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer is reasonable having regard to the
very difficult trading conditions within which it
operates. Competition is very keen from within the
Group and also from outside companies. Profit margins
are very low and the requirement for capital investment
is high. The Barlo Group has 3 panel radiator
manufacturing plants across Europe. Competition for the
Group's investment resources is high and the Group will
centralise production at their most cost efficient
plant. The Wicklow plant has been insolvent on three
separate occasions. It is essential therefore that the
Company achieves and maintains a competitive cost base.
2. The work currently carried out on shift is essentially
marginal business for export markets. It cannot sustain
a premium rate in excess of that currently being
operated. Another group of workers within the plant
have accepted the 15% shift premium offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions finds that there is an
acceptance by both parties that there is a need to fully
co-operate with change in an endeavour to maintain and secure the
employment and grow the Company.
The court notes that agreements will be maintained in accordance
with the May agreement and that the parties are making progress in
negotiating a single comprehensive agreement for the future.
The dispute before the Court refers to the fixed evening shift
introduced by the Company and the premium to be paid for this
shift. It is the view of the Court that the premium for this
shift should be 17%.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th March, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.