FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WAVIN IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Restoration of Shift Premium Differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of plastic pipes and fittings, supplying mainly to the construction industry. It employs approximately 120 people at its location in Balbriggan.
In 1999, an agreement was reached between production operators (represented by SIPTU) and craft personnel on a range of productivity measures for which the 3-shift cycle rate was increased from 20% to 25%.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of two electricians who operate on a 2-shift cycle. The Union is seeking an increase in shift premium from 16.67% to 20%. It argues that a 20% premium is the norm in industry generally. 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 2nd of November, 1999 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of February, 2000, the first date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company altered the 3-cycle shift premia from 20% to 25% without regard for the two maintenance electricians who provide shift cover on the 2-cycle shift and who will be obliged to service any increased productivity.
2. The Company adjusted the premia by 5% for up to thirty workers to reflect the norm in industry generally. In the circumstances the Union's claim for the application of the 20% norm for 2-cycle shift working is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The amended 3-shift cycle was negotiated with SIPTU on the strict understanding that it would not have knock on implications for 2-shift or day working. There has been no claim from SIPTU in this regard, despite the fact that SIPTU also has members on 2-shift working.
2. The Company negotiated the increase in the 3 shift premium in the context of significant productivity arrangements and a claim that the differential between 2 and 3 shift working did not reflect the requirement for night working associated with 3-shift working.
3. The 2-shift rate is fair recognition for the rota worked by the electricians. One of the shifts worked is, in effect, daywork - 8.00am to 4.00pm.
4. The electricians in question enjoy a high level of reward for their work in the company, including sick pay, pension, profit share (£1,800 in 1999) and permanent health insurance. The existing steep differential in earnings between the electricians and other members of the workforce has already been the subject of adverse comment throughout the plant. This claim if conceded, would exacerbate the situation.
5. This claim would have repercussive effects for other 2-shift workers and would entail a substantial cost increase for the Company. It is a cost increasing claim within the terms of the Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in their written and oral presentations.
The Court recommends that the parties explore the possibility of concluding a productivity agreement so as to resolve the dispute on a cost neutral basis.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd March, 2000.______________________
FB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.