FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABS PUMPS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Inclusion of shift premium in the calculation of the 1% lump sum provided for in the Programme for Prosperity & Fairness (PPF).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures industrial submersible pumps for export and employs approximately 300 workers at its plant in Wexford. The Company has fully implemented the pay terms of the PPF including 1% lump sum in April 2002. The Union are requesting that the calculation of the 1% lump sum should include shift premium as it is a key component in making up the pay of their members. The Union asserts that payment of shift premium is a systematic and continuous payment that is commonly regarded as a fundamental component of basic pay.
.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th January, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th November, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union requests the 1% lump sum payable under the PPF should be applied to shift earnings because of the traditional way in which shift earnings are treated within the Company. They have been classified in the same way as 'basic' as distinct from overtime.
2. The Union maintains, this 'minor payment' is in full spirit of the PPF in the context in which it was agreed and particularly in the historic context of what 'normal basic pay' means in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company has fully applied the PPF Agreement and the once-off lump sum payment equal to 1% ofbasic payas it applied in each employment and industry, implemented on 1st April, 2002.
2. It was communicated to employees from the outset that the Company would be applying the 1% to basic pay as per the National Agreement. There was never any indication from the Company that there may be a possibility of more than the agreement.
3. There could be knock-on-effects in other sections of the Union if this claim succeeds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the clarification issued by the National Implementation Body on the application of the 1% lump sum, the Court does not accept that shift premium can be regarded as constituting basic pay.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th_December, 2003______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.