FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIEBERT INTERNATIONAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Increase in shift premia.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the appropriate rate of shift premia to be paid to workers who operate 2-shift and 3-shift cycles.
Prior to 1995, the shift premium for 2-shift work was 22.5%, and 26% for 3-shift. In October, 1995, following a survival plan, a number of changes were made in the Company, including reducing the shift premium for 2-shift from 22.5% to 16.6% and 3-shift from 26% to 20%. The Union's claim is that the shift premia should be restored to what they were prior to the 1995 survival plan.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 29th of July, 1998. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of August, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of October, 1998, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1995 survival plan reduced the worker's earning potential, changed many of the agreed conditions of employment and removed many "perks" that workers had enjoyed. The workers accepted this and turned a plant which was on the point of closing into a highly successful one.
2. The reduction in the shift premia meant very little in the way of savings for the Company. Only rarely would more than 8/9 workers be involved in shift work, and it is unlikely that the number will increase.
3. The Company's view that restoring the shift premia would erode the plant's competitiveness is not true. With sales of £19.5 million (sales targets were £15.7 million for the year) the Company could afford to restore the shift premia.
4. Shift workers are without supervision between the hours of 7.00 p.m. - 8.00 a.m. This means that all emergencies are dealt with by them, which gives them added responsibility.
5. Shift work, and in particularl night work, can have a very detrimental effect on the health and social life of those who work the shifts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Cork plant is one of a number of plants in Europe which form Liebert Europe. All the plants are under pressure to control costs and remain competitive. It is critical that the return to competitiveness achieved in 1995 is maintained.
2. The Company's present shift premia are in line with others in the industry, and considerably better than a sister plant in the USA.
3. The Union's claim is cost-increasing under the terms of Partnership 2000. The Company and the Union must be seen to be committed to honouring the Partnership 2000 agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the current rates of shift pay are not out of line with such rates generally. Moreover, the claim is of a cost-increasing nature and, as such, is precluded under the pay agreement associated with Partnership 2000.
For these reasons, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th November, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.