FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Shift premium applying to shunters.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim, on behalf of engineering operatives in the Company's Limerick Garage, for the payment of a shift premium of time plus one fifth.
Prior to the Maintenance Staff Productivity Agreement 1998, a 3-cycle shift was in operation and, accordingly, the premium of time plus one fifth was paid. The 1998 Agreement provided for the elimination of the night shift and a proposed 2-cycle shift, as follows.
- Five days over seven days (Sunday to Saturday)
Early 09.00 to 17.00 hours
Late 17.00 to 01.00 hours
The Union claim for time plus one fifth is based on the requirement to work past midnight on the late shift, midnight to 01.00 hours comprising part of what are recognised as night shift hours. The Company's position is that the number of shift cycles determines the premium rate and, accordingly, a premium rate of time plus one sixth is applicable in this case.
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 17th of December, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Limerick, on the 1st of March, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was clearly not recognised at national level that there would remain the requirement to work into the established night-shift hours as has occurred in Limerick. The Company seems to be unwilling to recognise the fact that the workers concerned have to work up to 01.00am due to the exigencies of the service.
2. The workers require that uncertainty be taken out of what was guaranteed to them prior to the Company's endeavouring to reduce their long-established entitlement. They would like to continue co-operating with change, by consensus, and in the spirit of Partnership. They do not see compensation as being adequate for the loss of one fifth shift premium, giving the current formula. They work the hours prescribed and agreed, but expect that they would get recognition of working these hours as they had prior to the 1998 Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new roster is clearly a two-shift cycle and the coverage before the change was for 24 hours except for 07.00 to 8.30 hours and 22.30 to 23.00 hours, which qualified as a three cycle shift - early, late and night. There is no coverage on the new roster between 01.00 hours and 09.00 hours because of the elimination of the night-shift.
2. Under the 1997 Working Time Act, night workers are employees who normally work at least three hours of their daily working time during the hours of midnight and 07.00 hours. The staff covered by this claim would not, therefore, qualify as night workers under the Act.
3. Under the Company/Trade Union Agreement for payment of shift rates, an employee who works a day turn and a night turn of duty, or any combination of two shifts, is paid at time plus one sixth. The method of working similar two-cycle shifts and payment of time plus one sixth is applicable in other Garages in the Company and concession of the Union's claim would have repercussive effects in those garages. Where this change from three-cycle to two-cycle shift working has occurred in another Bus Eireann Garage, compensation has already been paid for loss of earnings arising from the difference in shift rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the rate applicable to two-cycle shift working is appropriate in this case. The Court recommends that the Union accept the Company's offer to negotiate a compensatory payment for those employees who suffer a loss of earnings due to the elimination of three-cycle shift working.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th March, 2000.______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.