FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THERMO KING EUROPE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning compensation for loss of earnings due to the introduction of weekend shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 800 workers in its refrigeration equipment manufacturing plant, in Galway. In late 1994, the Company and Union agreed on the introduction of a weekend shift in Unit 907 of the plant. The introduction of the shift was conditional on (1) its introduction not being a precedent for a weekend shift throughout the plant, (2) compensation being paid where there was a loss of earnings and (3) any such loss being identified by means of the workers' P60s. The weekend shift was originally introduced on a trial basis, up to the 31st of October, 1995. The trial period was subsequently extended. The weekend shift premium is 33.33% and, with the introduction of the shift, 12 new jobs have been created. The Union claims that there was a dramatic fall in earnings from 1994/1995 to 1995/1996 (up to £10,000 in some cases) most of which was due to the introduction of the weekend shift. The Company's response is that there are other reasons for the reduction and that, although earnings did fall, 1994/1995 was not a valid comparator year as it had been exceptionally busy with overtime earnings increased dramatically.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The parties, subsequently, endeavoured to examine the earnings in order to attempt to identify the overtime/shift element. Company figures apparently indicated that there was a direct connection between the increased manpower and the fall in overtime. The Company claimed that it was being penalised for taking on additional workers. The Union rejected the Company's figures and reiterated that, in accordance with the original agreement, the losses should be compensated for.
Agreement was not reached between the parties and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 6th of January, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Galway, on the 26th of February, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Compensation is not being sought for loss of overtime due to business fluctuations, but where there is loss due to the introduction of the weekend shift.
2. There is a loss to the workers in Unit 907, according to the relevant P60s. The Union's calculations show that there have been many considerable savings to the Company arising from the introduction of the weekend shift (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company should base its calculation on earning from 1992 to 1996 or 1997, with the exception of 1993 when there was a downturn in Company business.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Any loss of overtime due to the introduction of the weekend shift is impossible to measure given the circumstances. The exceptionally high levels of overtime in 1994, on which the Union is basing its claim, were unique.
2. Overtime still continues in Unit 907 though at a lower level than in 1994. New machinery and more efficient methods of working have also contributed to the decrease.
3. The Company has increased its workforce by approximately 150 since 1994 in response to the extra demand and to cut back on the amount of overtime which was running at too high a level.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties and finds that, whilst some loss has occurred as a consequence of the introduction of the weekend shift, it would be extremely difficult to apportion the losses, in the light of the previous access to weekend overtime and the excessive earnings in 1994.
Given all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Company pay to the Union the sum of £15,000, to be distributed in as equitable a manner as possible to those employees it is considered have suffered a loss.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
11th of March, 1997______________________
M.K./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.