FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAXTER HEALTHCARE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Introduction of shift premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a privately owned US multinational and manufactures health care products in its Swinford and Castlebar plants. At present there are approximately 1,100 staff in Co. Mayo.
Since 1989, the Company had on a number of occasions introduced week-end working arrangements to cater for the business needs of the plant. Upwards of 30 staff covered same and this figure could drop to 5/6 staff depending on the operations needs. Management, after representations from the shop stewards and the Union agreed to pay over-time for such cover. Week-end working consists of two twelve hour shifts Saturday and Sunday i.e. 24 hours in total. The payment of over-time for this week-end cover allowed for 46 hours pay for 24 hours worked. In October, 2001, Management met with the shop stewards and discussed the issue of introducing the week-end shift again i.e. 2x12 hour shift Saturday/Sunday.
The Union were of the impression that the Company were no longer willing to pay over-time for week-end cover and offered a 20% shift allowance instead which was unacceptable to Union representatives.
Discussions took place locally but agreement was not reached. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, but agreement was not reached. The matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990 on the 3rd of August, 2002. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th November, in Mayo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company operate in one of the most profitable markets in Health Care.
2. The workers are not opposed in principle to week-end shifts.
3. The payment for working these hours must reflect the unsociable nature of the shift, either by an enhanced shift allowance or by a proper over-time payment as has been the case to date.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had to change because of cost reductions. The practice in the Company of a weekend shift on a Saturday and Sunday, each of twelve hours totalling 24 hours over the weekend carries a premium paid at an overtime rate rather than a shift rate, which is equivalent to paying 46 hours pay for 24 hours work.
2. To justify their claim, the Union quoted an example of another Company in Westport who they said paid a premium of 33.3% for a similar kind of weekend shift together with minimum guarantees. The Company have subsequently discovered that the information the Union quoted was not accurate.
3. The Company's offer of 25% is generous in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the Company's need to introduce a weekend shift on a Saturday and Sunday, each of twelve hours, totalling 24 hours to cope with surges in production and which will therefore will be operated on an intermittent basis. It is also noted that the Company will seek volunteers to work this shift and that there will be no loss of overtime as a result of its operation.
The Court is of the view that the Company's offer of a 25% shift premium is reasonable for such an arrangement. The Court recommends that the Union should accept this offer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th December, 2002______________________
HMCD/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.