FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VITABOND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Shift premia.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, Vitabond Ltd., is part of the Vita Cortex Group of Companies and specialises in foam, fibre and other products. The Company employs a total of 180 staff in Dublin, Cork, Navan, Athlone and Belfast. There are 15 employees in Vitabond in Athlone. The Athlone facility is involved in fibre processing for the furniture and bedding industry in Ireland and to a lesser extent the UK. There are 9 workers involved in this dispute.
The Company operates a three-shift system. Each shift has a half-hour paid meal break. Following a request from the Union in the late 1979's, the weekly premia payments have been averaged to 19.44% for all shifts. In June, 2000, the Union requested a meeting with the Company to discuss shift premia amongst other issues. The Company rejected the Union's claim concerning shift premia and as the parties were unable to reach agreement the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on the 26th of February, 2001, but as no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of June, 2001, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of January, 2002, in Athlone.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union does not accept that the claim is outside the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
2. The current shift rate of pay of 19.44% is out of kilter with other companies organised by the Union in Athlone and its environs.
3. As there are only 9 employees involved in this claim, the cost will be minimal.
4. The Union is not seeking a pay increase, it is seeking to have an anomaly addressed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The current shift premium arrangements are competitive when compared to those applying in the area that the Company operates in.
2. The claim is a cost increasing claim, which is precluded by the terms of the National Pay Agreement.
3. Any increase in costs, and in particular an increase of 5% over and above the provisions of the pay agreement have implications for the competitiveness of the operation.
4. There have been no change to the shift arrangements in the Company which would warrant any change in the premium paid.
5. Concession of this claim could have repercussive effects on bonus and allowances payments within the group of companies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the current shift arrangements were introduced by agreement with the Union. Furthermore, it appears to the Court that the claim as presented is cost increasing and is precluded by the PPF.
However, given the period which has elapsed since the current arrangements were agreed, the parties should re-examine those arrangements at the expiry of the PPF as it applies to this employment. In this re-examination, regard should be had to appropriate rates of shift premia applicable in comparable employments.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th February, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.