Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95484 Case Number: LCR15052 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BERU MANUFACTURING LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Bonus system. 2. Shift premium.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, recommends as
follows:-
BONUS
The Court finds it impractical to apply the incentive
scheme to the indirect workers here concerned. It is
the view of the Court however, that their contribution
should be recognised. Accordingly, the Court recommends
that the parties have further discussions with a view to
putting in place an appropriate arrangement to reward
the workers concerned. If agreed, it should come into
effect following the expiry of the PCW.
SHIFT PREMIUM
The Court, given all the circumstances applying to this
issue, does not find grounds have been put forward to
warrant concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95484 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15052
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BERU MANUFACTURING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Bonus system.
2. Shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2.1. The Company, which employs a workforce of 135, was
established in Tralee in 1986. It manufactures a range of
components for the automotive industry.
The Union's claim for the introduction of a bonus system is
on behalf of 10 indirect workers. At negotiations the
Company proposed a performance appraisal bonus scheme, which
was rejected by the Union. The Union suggested the
introduction of a production bonus, or regrading to a higher
basic salary to include an average bonus payment. This was
rejected by the Company.
The Union also contends that the current 20% night shift
premium is seriously out of line with that applying in
industry throughout the country, where rates can range from
22% to 35%. The Company argues that its rates are within the
norm nationally and are in accordance with the Company/Union
agreement signed in 1986.
A conciliation conference was held under the auspices of the
Labour Relations Commission on 10th May, 1995, at which
agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 23rd August, 1995 in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute, in Tralee, on 23rd November, 1995,
the earliest date suitable to both parties.
BONUS SYSTEM.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. It has been understood, since the Company was established,
that a bonus system would apply, in time, to indirect
workers. It is grossly unfair to deny them an equal
opportunity to earn bonus, as they work on a continuous basis
with others who have the opportunity.
2. Clause 33/1/6 of the Company/Union agreement (details
supplied to the Court) places the Company under an obligation
to provide a production related scheme.
3. The Company's proposal of a performance appraisal system is
contrary to the terms of the agreement and seeks to introduce
a totally new concept into wage determination within the
Company.
4. In the case of one worker who was transferred from a
bonus-earning position to one without bonus, the Company has
failed to recognise its obligations under Clause 33.5 of the
agreement, resulting in a consequential loss of earnings to
the worker. Another worker has been engaged on
rectification, again without the potential to earn bonus.
5. The Industrial Engineering Department in the Company should
be capable of devising a production bonus scheme, in
accordance with the terms of the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. Agreed rates of pay and bonus are in operation for direct
workers. Indirect workers are on a higher basic rate to
compensate for the lack of bonus. The Union's proposal for
regrading, to include an average bonus calculation, is a
cost-increasing claim and, therefore, is precluded under the
terms of the PCW.
2. Established relativities between the basic rates must be
maintained, as per the Company/Union agreement.
3. There was never a commitment to extend a bonus system to
indirect workers, nor an intention to apply an average bonus.
4. The indirect jobs concerned do not allow for specific
measurement by an industrial engineer. However, the proposed
performance appraisal system would be linked to productivity
and take account of improved performance.
SHIFT PREMIUM
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5.1. The shift premia for morning and evening shifts are 16.66%
while the night shift premium is 20%. These rates are
substantially out of line with those in other employments
throughout the country, where rates can vary from 22% to 35%
(details supplied to the Court).
2. Workers deserve to be adequately compensated for the
disruption to family and social life, which night shift work
entails. Health problems can also be exacerbated by night
shift work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6.1. The night shift premium of 20% is in accordance with the
Company/Union agreement signed in 1986. The Company has
adhered to National Pay Agreements and, consequently, the
premium's value has been maintained.
2. Any increase in costs would have a negative impact on the
Company's competitiveness in a particularly competitive
market. It would also breach the terms of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, recommends as
follows:-
BONUS
The Court finds it impractical to apply the incentive
scheme to the indirect workers here concerned. It is
the view of the Court however, that their contribution
should be recognised. Accordingly, the Court recommends
that the parties have further discussions with a view to
putting in place an appropriate arrangement to reward
the workers concerned. If agreed, it should come into
effect following the expiry of the PCW.
SHIFT PREMIUM
The Court, given all the circumstances applying to this
issue, does not find grounds have been put forward to
warrant concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th January, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.