FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DONEGAL HEALTHCARE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation for loss of shift.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of medical devices and employs a workforce of approximately 270 people. The issue in dispute is a claim by the Union on behalf of an employee, who works as a maintenance electrician, for compensation for the loss of shift premium.
In August, 1999, the Company transferred the employee from evening shift, which carried a premium of 18%, to day shift. He was paid six weeks' shift premium as compensation for loss of earnings. The Union is seeking eighteen months' compensation on his behalf.
The issue was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 27th of January and the 12th of April, 2001. As agreement was not possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of May, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Donegal on the 10th of October, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant was engaged in shift work for approximately ten years. His transfer to day shift constituted a considerable drop in earnings.
2. The Company's offer of six weeks' compensation for loss of earnings is unrealistic and unfair. At the time that the claimant was transferred to day shift, three Process Technicians were put on twelve hour shifts.
3. The Union did not agree that six weeks' loss of earnings should be the correct compensation. In fact, a number of employees received more than six weeks' compensation in the past, while one particular employee continues to retain his shift premium after several months.
4. In Labour Court recommendation LCR14264 the Court recommended payment of 18 months' compensation for loss of shift to employees who had worked on shift for over 36 months. This would be the appropriate compensation in this case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It has been the custom and practice since 1983 to pay the higher shift rate for six weeks after an employee has been transferred by the Company. No compensation is paid to employees who request a transfer.
2. The issue was the subject of a conciliation conference in 1993 and the outcome was that the precedent established in 1983 was not changed.
3. The Company only transfers employees when necessary and gives them as much notice as possible. There was a higher number of transfers than usual in 1999 due to customer demands and restructuring. The Company must maintain flexibility in order to remain competitive.
4. For financial reasons, the Company cannot increase the compensation paid to one employee, as it would affect all employees who are transferred from shift work. In order to resolve the issue at conciliation, the Company offered the claimant the opportunity to return to evening shift work, which he declined.
RECOMMENDATION:
It would appear that while custom and practice may have prevailed in relation to 6-week compensation payments for coming off shifts, there does not seem to be a formal agreement. The Court is also conscious of the inconsistency of application of the formula.
The Court is of the view that the figure of 6 weeks compensation is unreasonable taking into account the length of time the claimant was on shift and on that basis recommends that the parties meet to agree a satisfactory compensation figure in this particular case.
If agreement is not reached, the Court will on request make a definitive recommendation on the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th October, 2001______________________
D.G./C.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.