FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Introduction of shift working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 25 workers concerned are employed by Iarnrod Eireann at the CIE Club, Earl Place, Dublin. The Club provides a canteen service for bus crews operating in the Dublin area. The workers who are part of the Company's Network Catering Staff operate the following hours:-
8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.
The dispute before the Court concerns that Union's claim on behalf of the workers for the payment of shift premium. Management rejects the Union's claim.
Following local level discussions the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 2nd May, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 3rd May, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st May, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All non-catering staff employed by Iarnrod Eireann who work similar hours to the workers concerned are paid shift premium.
2. The criteria under which the Labour Court recommended payment of shift pay to Iarnrod Eireann employees in 1973 is that ;
"four hours separate the starting time of one shift and the
starting time of the next shift, in order to qualify for shift
payment."
The Union's claim is that the Company apply 'shift payment' to the workers concerned in accordance with the 1973 Labour Court Recommendation.
3. The catering staff are the lowest paid grade in Iarnrod Eireann. It is unacceptable that the Company refuse to apply the shift payment to this category of worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for shift premium payment is cost increasing and, therefore, cannot be pursued under the terms of the PCW. A previous claim for shift premium payment in respect of Network Catering staff was not pursued following conciliation talks at which it was accepted that as a cost increasing claim it was prohibited under the terms of the PESP.
2. The cost implications of this claim, both direct and indirect, would have a devastating effect on the Network Catering business and thereby jeopardise employment and service to customers.
3. The workers concerned enjoy favourable conditions of employment, their rates of pay compare favourably to those which apply in the catering industry generally.
4. Shift premium payment is not applied in the catering industry generally. Concession of this claim could have implications for the catering industry in general.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court has concluded that the claim is cost increasing and accordingly having regard to the terms of the PCW the Court cannot recommended its concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th June, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.