FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHOWERINGS (IRELAND) LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. (1) Payment of shift premium while on certified illness (2) Payment of Saturday overtime at the appropriate shift premium rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the processing, manufacturing and bottling of ciders, perries, fruit juices and soft drinks at its plant in Annerville, Clonmel. Apple crushing, juice fermentation, storage and filtration takes place at its Dowd's Lane premises.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim concerning (1) payment of shift premium while on certified sick absence and , (2) payment of Saturday overtime at the appropriate shift premium rate. Following local level discussion the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on 27th March, and 24th April, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 10th May, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Clonmel on 4th June, 1996.
Claim (1): Payment of shift premium while absent on certified sick leave.
3. The Company's sick pay scheme provides for the payment of basic pay for a maximum of 13 weeks. The Unions' claim is on behalf of 6 workers who operate a continuous 2 shift cycle for which a shift premium of 22% is paid. The Unions are seeking that the shift premium be taken into account in the calculation of sick pay. The Company rejects the claim.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The loss of earnings during sick absence is substantial and could cause the workers concerned considerable hardship.
2. The shift allowance is an integral part of the workers' earnings. It is paid for public holidays and annual leave.
3. Many companies include shift premium in the calculation of sick pay.
4. Showerings is a profitable company and the cost of concession of the Unions' claim would be small. In the circumstances the Unions' claim is not unreasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company's scheme compares favourably with most sick pay schemes in industry generally.
2. Payment is made from the first day of illness. There is no sliding scale and the scheme includes payment of prescription and doctors' fees.
3. Shift premium is paid on the basis of unsocial hours worked. There is no justification for its payment other than for hours worked.
4. The argument that good sick pay schemes result in lower levels of absence is not sustainable. Absence levels over the last 10 years have risen by 67%.
5. Concession of this claim would lead to similar claims from other groups in receipt of premium payments.
6. This claim is outside the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) and in the circumstances the Company is not prepared to incur any further costs to an already cost burdened scheme.
Claim (2): Payment of Saturday overtime at the appropriate shift premium rate.
6. The 6 workers concerned operate a 2 shift cycle on a five days per week basis for which
a premium of 22% is paid. Saturday is regularly worked on overtime. The Unions argue that the shift premium of 22% should be included in basic pay for the purpose of calculating Saturday overtime. The Company's position is that it will only pay overtime at the shift rate if on a Saturday a full 2 shift cycle is completed.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Shift premium was included in the calculation of Saturday overtime for temporary employees employed by the Company in Dowd's Lane in 1995. The rate was paid to the workers without demands or claims from any source. The Unions claim that overtime worked by the claimants on Saturdays be treated equally.
2. In industry generally most workers in receipt of shift allowance are paid overtime at the consolidated rate. The Labour Court has conceded similar claims on many occasions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. It has been the practice for many years that overtime worked at week-ends is paid at the appropriate rate.
2. The only exception occurred in Dowd's Lane during the apple crushing season of 1995 (September/December). The circumstances were dictated by the precarious supply of fresh apples within the market place. This necessitated the continuation of either the full two or three shift cycle patterns over the week-end.
3. A clear distinction exists between the work pattern at week-ends in Dowd's Lane and that of the workers concerned.
4. The Company reaffirms that it will pay the appropriate shift premium on overtime worked on a Saturday provided that the full shift cycles are completed by the workers concerned.
5. The need for intermittent shift working throughout the Company is likely to become a regular feature and concession of this claim could have considerable repercussive effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and finds as follows:-
Claim (1): In relation to the claim for the incorporation of shift premium in addition to their pay for the purpose of sick pay, the Court is not satisfied that the existing scheme is out of line with such schemes generally, thus the claim is precluded under the terms of the PCW.
Claim (2): The Court considers that the Company's offer in relation to the claim as made is reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
1st July, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.