FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SWORDS LABORATORIES (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Additional holidays for 7 day working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb of New York. It was established in 1964 and is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical chemicals. It employs a workforce of approximately 400 people.
In 1996, following intensive negotiations and the threat of closure, the Company introduced 7 day shift working and revised manning levels. Although the 7 day shift work is in operation, a number of issues were not agreed and the final agreement has not yet been signed by the parties. The issue before the Court concerns the Unions' claim for an additional three days' annual leave for the 7 day shift working. The Unions claim that under the terms of a 1981 Agreement approximately 110 workers are already in receipt of an additional two days' annual leave for 5 day shift working, and are entitled to five days for the 7 day shift work.
The issue was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 15th of February, 1999. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th of March, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 22nd of June, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions' claim for additional leave was raised at local level and official level throughout discussions on the new work practices. However, Management consistently refused to accept the claimants' entitlement.
2. Clause 19 of the 1981 Company/Union Agreement clearly states "Five-day shift workers will receive an extra 2 days; seven-day shift workers will receive an extra 5 days". The claimants are already in receipt of the extra two days as they had previously worked a five day shift. They are now entitled to a further three days.
3. At the time of the 1981 Agreement, Management may not have envisaged a 7 day shift being required. However, the Company signed the Agreement and it is unreasonable to now refuse to apply its terms. The Company should, therefore, honour its commitment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of the 1981 Agreement the only employees who worked 7 day shift work were security staff whose rosters included night shift and working five weekends in eight. The claimants are required to work only 1.5 shifts in five weekends.
2. The holiday entitlements of the claimants are already substantial and competitive with best practice. Concession of additional holidays would incur substantial additional cost since such holidays would have to be covered by overtime working.
3. The Company's rejection of this claim has been clearly minuted and was known by all parties. Clarification was sought on other issues and interpretation of various clauses, but the issue of additional holidays was not raised until more than a year after the 1996 Agreement had been in full operation and all elements of the compensation had been applied. This is a new claim which is cost increasing and, therefore, precluded by the terms of Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute, the Court is not satisfied that the 1981 Agreement can be validly relied upon to support the Unions' claim for an additional three days' annual leave.
That Agreement was concluded at a time when the only form of 7 day shift working envisaged involved security staff whose shift cycle was weighted towards night working and five weekends in eight. The Court is satisfied that the three extra days' holidays were intended to compensate for the unsocial element involved in that shift cycle.
The Court also notes that the Company consistently rejected the Unions' claim for the introduction of an additional three days' leave at the time that 7 day working was introduced. It is regrettable that the parties failed to conclude and sign a formal agreement covering 7 day working and amending the 1981 Agreement as necessary, at that time or since.
While the 7 day shift cycle now worked does have an unsocial element relative to the previous 5 day working arrangements, it is significantly less than that for which the 1981 Agreement was intended to cater.
The Court recommends that an additional one day's annual leave should be conceded to those involved in the present 7 day shift working, with effect from the current leave year. This should be conditional on the Unions and the Company signing a formal agreement disposing of all issues arising from the settlement reached in 1996.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd July, 2000______________________
D.G./S.H.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.