FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHINKO MICROELECTRONICS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Retrospection arising from increased leave allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. Shinko Microelectronics is based in Tallaght and employs 270 people. In August, 1998 agreement was reached between the parties to extend 4-cycle shift working to all workers with effect from the 1st of September, 1998. Some 40/50 workers have been operating 4-cycle shift working since 1996.
The agreement provided for the application of an additional 1 day's leave to all workers operating the 4-cycle shift with effect from leave year 1998. In June, 1996, the Company eliminated the two weeks summer shutdown in favour of a June Public Holiday weekend shutdown. This shutdown required 4-cycle shift workers to take between 12 and 36 hours annual leave to cover this period.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of approximately 46 workers for the application of the increased annual leave retrospectively to workers operating the 4-cycle shift since 1996. It argues that the change from the two weeks summer shutdown had an adverse affect on the 4-cycle shift workers. Management rejects the claim.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st of March, 1999, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of June, 1999, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of flexible holidays increased the Company's production capacity and was recommended on the basis that the particular concerns of the 4-cycle shift workers would be addressed.
2. Strong objections were raised by the operatives to flexible holiday arrangements as it obliged them to take a maximum of 36 hours leave from their flexible holidays depending on their shift roster.
3. The June shutdown affected the 4-cycle shift during 1996/1998 and cannot be compared to the summer shutdown prior to 1996 which affected the entire plant. If these days were worked the 4-cycle shift operatives would be entitled to extra pay in addition to retaining the scope for taking flexible holidays.
4. Prior to 1996, a minimum of 96 hours was used for summer holidays. Since 1996, a maximum of 36 hours is used for the June shutdown and a minimum of 96 hours for summer holidays. As part of the overall plant transfer to 4-cycle shift the Union advanced similar arguments and the Company accepted the logic of the Union's position, agreeing to grant an extra 8 hours leave. In the circumstances the Union's claim for the application to the 4-cycle shift of the 8 hours retrospective to 1996 is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's initial claim for additional holidays for those on 4-cycle shift working since 1996 was originally based on its belief that the June Public Holiday shutdown repeatedly disadvantaged some of the crews. This is not correct and has been shown to be incorrect. Despite this, the Union has refused to accept this reality or that its claim has no basis.
2. In August 1998, the Company still maintained that there were no grounds to grant additional leave on the basis of 4-shift work rotating through a required maintenance shutdown. It recognised however, that to negotiate and agree the extension of 4-shift working throughout the plant, there would have to be improvement in conditions of employment. This was in effect the price of the change required.
3. The Company agreed to the additional 8 hours leave as part of an entire package contained in an amended IRO's proposal. The agreement had benefits for those already on and those going onto 4 shift working.
4. The approximate cumulative cost of this comprehensive package was 6%. This package explicitly stated dates for the introduction of such improvements going forward. There is no retrospection allowed for, or sought by the Union as part of this proposal. This proposal was agreed and accepted by the Union and has been subsequently implemented.
5. The Company is legally, procedurally and contractually entitled to schedule the holidays. The holiday provision is already above average and the Company cannot afford any further cost increasing claims due to current substantial losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, based on the written and oral submissions, and taking into account the background to this case, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th July, 1999.______________________
FB/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.