FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PANDORO - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Inclusion of shift pay for calculation of pension purposes.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are approximately 16 workers involved in the claim which concerns the inclusion of shift pay for pension purposes. The Company's Dublin operation has been in existence since 1975. The shift work involves providing cover from 0600 hours to 2400 hours Monday to Saturday, and occasionally 7 day cover. The Union wants the claim to be backfunded. At the hearing, the Company suggested that the workers might use some of their wages to fund a change in the present pension scheme, with the Company also contributing.
The claim has been discussed at local level for a number of years without agreement being reached. It was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 6th of August, 1996. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of September, 1997, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of October, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The definition of pensionable pay in the current staff pension scheme is "annual salary excluding overtime payments, commission, bonuses and any other form of fluctuating emoluments on the 1st of January each year". Shift pay is not a fluctuating emolument in this case. Most of the workers involved have been on shift work for the past 20 years or more. Their wages do not vary except by the various wage rounds. Pensionable pay within the operative and foreman scheme is defined as basic plus shift. The staff workers involved in the claim should be treated the same. The majority of shift workers in the industry have their shift allowance included for pension purposes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The monthly management account (August, 1997) indicates a dramatic deterioration in the Company's trading situation. The Company is part of an industry which has not seen any real improvement since 1985. In cost terms, the Company has priced itself out of the market. The annual cost of the claim is £6,768. The main problem, however, with the claim is backfunding, which the Company cannot afford. The majority of the workers involved in the claim earn approximately £26,000 per annum, inclusive of overtime and shift pay. The workers are looking at other employees' packages and pursuing selective claims. No other companies in the industry have similiar conditions in their pension schemes as those being pursued by the present claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the information presented, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
However, the Court notes the options suggested by the Company in relation to the employees using some of their national wage increase to fund a change in the pension arrangements, and recommends that the parties meet to explore this option.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
31st October, 1997______________________
C.O'N./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.