FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK PLASTICS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Increase in pay 2. Process technician shift allowance 3. Day staff selection.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1969 and manufactures plastic building products for the Irish and UK markets. The dispute concerns the Union's claim for:
(1) Increase in basic pay and attendance bonus.
(2) Process technician shift rate.
(3) Selection of staff for day work.
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 23rd of December, 1999 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took in place in Cork on the 14th
of September, 2000, the first available date suitable to the parties.
INCREASE IN BASIC PAY AND ATTENDANCE BONUS.
The Union's claim on behalf of 20 day workers is for an increase in pay of £17 per week
plus an attendance bonus of £30 per week. It argues that these increases were
proposed by the Labour Relations Commission as part of the proposals for the
introduction of the four shift rota in 1999 and that in the past all such increases were
applied to all SIPTU members. The Company rejects the claim. Its position is that this
pay structure is in relation to the four shift cycle only.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It has been customary to apply all increases agreed with SIPTU to all Union members.
2. During discussions on the attendance, the Union was not made aware that this would apply to the four shift rota only. The attendance bonus was discussed on the basis of addressing the problem of absenteeism.
3. There is a difference in pay of approximately 50% between the four shift rota and the day workers. This is out of line with industry generally where a difference of 33 1/3 % would be the norm.
4. The Company is currently enjoying the fruits of the four shift rota and has purchased an additional ten extrusion machines as a result of the goodwill afforded by the entire workforce. In the circumstances it is unreasonable and unfair to pay an attendance bonus and an increase in pay to one section of the workforce only.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During discussions on the introduction of the four shift rota, the Union agreed that the workers would have to work weekends and its introduction would have adverse effects on their social lives and that the Company would have to pay substantial wage increases for their members to operate the system.
2. The four shift cylce rate agreed at conciliation was ring-fenced on foot of the last paragraph stating that this pay structure is in relation to the four shift system only.
3. The claim is cost increasing and therefore outside the terms of Partnership 2000.
PROCESS TECHNICIAN SHIFT ALLOWANCE
The Union's claim on behalf of 8 process technicians is for shift allowance to be based
on their basic rate of pay. Currently shift allowance is based on the general
operatives rate of pay. The Company rejects the claim. It argues that process
technicians have always been paid the same shift allowance as general operatives even
though their basic rates are different.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is common practice in industry generally to pay shift allowance as a percentage of an employee's basic wage.
2. The workers concerned did not receive a contract of employment and were unaware from the outset that their shift allowance would be based on a salary other than their own.
3. The process technicians are entitled to be paid shift allowance based on their own salary and in the circumstances the Union is seeking that the claim be back dated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has always paid the process technicians on the basis of the same shift allowance as general operatives. This system has been in place since day one when the technicians began to receive shift allowance in July, 1995.
2. In 1997 and 1998 discussions took place with the technicians regarding their role, grades and pay. During the discussions the technicians did not look for a change in the way the allowance was calculated and the pay structure was and is calculated as previously.
DAY STAFF SELECTION
The Union is seeking that all things being equal seniority should be the criteria used in
the appointment of applicants to day jobs. The Company's position is that it should
have the right to choose the person it considers the most capable to work in these
positions.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union is seeking that all things being equal management should offer day jobs internally on the basis of seniority. The Union is concerned that senior staff operating on shift are loosing out on the opportunity to revert to day work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company believes that it should have the choice as to who is suitable, qualified and/or capable to work in these positions. There has been precedent in relation to this issue in that the Company has carried out the process for the last 10 years and wishes to continue to do so.
2. At present this is not an issue in that personnel are no longer applying to work permanent days as the four shift system currently pays significantly more than the old three shift system.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court recommends as follows in respect of each of the Union's claims:
Increase in pay/Attendance Bonus.
The Court is satisfied that the increase in pay and the introduction of an attendance bonus were conceded so as to enhance the attractiveness of four cycle shift working. It is clear that they were intended to apply only to those working that shift pattern.
Given the purpose of these concessions the Court could not recommend their automatic extension to all other employees.
Process Technicians - Shift Allowance.
The Court notes that in the case of all other employees shift allowances is based on their actual rate of pay. The Court can see no valid reason as to why a different arrangement should apply in the case of process technicians.
The Court, therefore, recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Day Staff Selection.
The Court recommends that where applicants for day work vacancies are equally suitable, seniority should be the decisive factor in selection.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29 September, 2000______________________
FB/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.