FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARRAMARA TEO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Introduction of shift pay. Allowance for chargehands.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns two claims by the Union on behalf of its members for (a) Rate of pay for shift workers.The Union contend that the differential paid to members who work a two cycle shift and a three cycle shift is unfair. (b) Rate of pay for three chargehands. This claim is in respect of additional duties and responsibilities performed by these members.
The Company rejects the claim.
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 19th August ,2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th November 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Shift premium is a recognised and accepted payment made to employees to compensate for the inconvenience and unsocial aspect of their hours of work. The Union is seeking the normal industrial shift premium of 16.5% for evening shift and 33.3% for night shift to be applied to it's members.
2. There is no production Manager in charge of operations and the responsibility is carried by the three chargehands. They do not receive any additional payments in respect of the additional duties and responsibilities they perform. This is unacceptable by the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been trading at a loss and is unable to sustain any increases at this time, but should it return to profitability the matter can be reviewed.
2. The Claims are cost increasing and therefore outside the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and the Sustaining Progress Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was presented with conflicting evidence from the parties in relation to whether the current pay scales included shift payments and an allowance for chargehands.
The Company claimed there had been allowances in the past but that they had been consolidated into the pay scales in previous discussions.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, is not in a position to decide that the current rate includes the allowances. If it does, then the basic rate of pay would seem to be very low.
The Court recommends that discussions take place between the parties to address this issue, bearing in mind the Company's financial state.
If agreement is not reached within 6 weeks, the matter can be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th December, 2003______________________
JO'C/JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jo O'Connor, Court Secretary.