FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DE BEERS INDUSTRIAL DIAMOND DIVISION (IRELAND) (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Application of shift premium to security staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established at Shannon in 1961 and employs a workforce of approximately 535 in the manufacture, processing and distribution of industrial diamond and related products. The Company employs its own security personnel directly and the security department comprises a manager, a supervisor and 14 security officers (including 2 drivers), of whom 12 are involved in this dispute. Security officers are at Grade E (following a job-evaluation) which attracts a salary of £15,662 to £20,986. They work a 38.75 hour week and receive fringe benefits including a 10% guaranteed bonus. The Union is seeking the application of a shift premium on behalf of the 12 on the grounds that they work a variation of the 4-cycle shift.
The Company has rejected the claim stating that it is in breach of Partnership 2000 (P2000) and also that, in accordance with the claimants' employment contract, the shift allowance is already incorporated into their salaries. The Company also claims that the issue was dealt with in a previous Labour Court Recommendation (LCR 5097).
` The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 20th of August, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Limerick, on the 17th of December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company claims that the Union accepted a package deal in 1976 and that this was in settlement of all outstanding disputes including shift allowance. The issues in dispute at the time were Travel Allowance, Housing Allowance and Shift Allowance. In the Union's letter of acceptance it is noted that the Company "made no offer" regarding shift allowance. The matter of shift allowance was left to be addressed at a future date.
2. The Company has argued that if the salary for security officers included shift allowance before the introduction of the job-evaluation scheme and the incremental salary scales then it must do so after the introduction of the job-evaluation scheme. This ignores the fact that, on the introduction of the job evaluation-scheme, new incremental salary scales were introduced in respect of each grade. Whether or not compensation for shift work had been consolidated into the basic pay rate for security officers previously is irrelevant because, following the introduction of the job-evaluation scheme, all jobs were 'scored' and slotted into different grades to which different incremental salary scales applied. Because the security officer jobs were graded at E, they initially had to be placed on a point on the incremental salary scale pertaining to Grade E. Within the graded structure in the Company there are other categories of workers on Grade E to whom shift premia are paid on top of each incremental point of the salary scale. This demonstrates that the application of shift premia for those who do shift work is separate and in addition to the basic incremental salary scale.
3. There is no reference to shift working in the list of characteristics on which each job is evaluated.
4. All other workers on shift throughout the Company are paid shift premia at varying rates and work a straight 5-day shift, Monday to Friday inclusive, and are not obliged to work weekends or public holidays except on overtime. These workers, in the main, work a 3-cycle shift and are paid, irrespective of grade/scale, an additional one fifth of basic salary. By contrast, security officers operate a continuous 3-cycle shift which includes weekends and public holidays. If a worker on Grade/scale "F1" were to be promoted to the security department on Grade/scale "E" (an upgrading) he would incur a salary reduction of £2,000. If the same worker were to be promoted within his own department, and continued to work shift, he would increase his earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The long-standing employment contract applying to security officers clearly states that "all security staff are subject to shift work" (Clause 3). Clause 5 states that salary is inclusive of a shift disturbance allowance.
2. The rates of pay of the Security Officers are very high and in excess of the security industry norm. The E-grade has applied since the upgrading of the position in 1977, which allowed for an improvement in basic pay to reflect all aspects of the job. This was also reflected in commensurate increases in bonus, pension and overtime payments.
3. Notwithstanding an agreed package settlement following a claim by the Union to improve pay and conditions for Security Officers in 1976, the Union again submitted a claim for the upgrading of the Security Officer positions in 1977, to include a shift allowance payment. Following the Union's rejection of Company proposals, this exact same claim was adjudicated on by the Labour Court in 1979. In its previous recommendation on this issue, the Court stated that it did "not find that grounds" existed "which would justify payment of the shift premium claimed in addition to the rates of pay, etc., enjoyed by the claimants". The Court, accordingly, did not recommend concession of the claim.
In view of the fact that this matter has already been adjudicated on by the Labour Court, which found in accordance with the contracts of employment, as applied by custom and practice, the Company sees no basis for concession at this stage.
4. It is clear that the existing security officer salary is inclusive of shift. As such, their claim is essentially a claim for a wage increase over and above the terms of P2000 which stipulates that "no cost-increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions of employment will be made or processed".
This Company is a party to the terms of P2000 and has already applied the first phase of this agreement. As the Union is also a party to this agreement, it should, likewise, abide by its terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, and the history of this case, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th of January, 1998______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.