FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CELTIC LINEN LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. A. Overtime calculated on the hourly rate inclusive of shift premium
B. 20% shift premium be paid on all pay weeks while a systematic shift rotation exists.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a family owned Irish laundry Company operating in a very competitive market supplying a textile rental service and direct sale product to the hospitality, healthcare and industry sectors. It employs over 500 people. The laundry runs on two production shifts - 8.00 am to 4.20 pm and 4.20pm to 12.40 am. A premium of 20% applies to the late shift only. The production workers operate this shift system all year round. They are seeking the payment of 20% for both shifts. They are also seeking the inclusion of shift pay in the calculation of overtime. Both claims are based on what the Union regards as norms in these matters.
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 October, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th June, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Company is a major player in the Laundry/Linen business nationally and is in a strong financial position. This should be reflected in members pay and conditions of employment and the current minimalist arrangements do not.
2. The Craft workers rate is at the lower end of the rung compared to those in the same category nationally.
3. When on evening shift the hourly rate for the standard eight hours attracts a shift premium. If workers have to stay later the overtime hours do not attract a shift premium. This is unfair and unacceptable.
4. The current practice of only paying shift workers overtime on day rate is out of line with practices in comparable industries.
5. The Craft workers often have to work 46 hours a week. They may be required to work shift work for an undefined period of time.
6. The Union request that overtime payments include the shift premium. If shift work is required for busy periods, that this shift attract a 20% premium each week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company does not accept these claims and believes them to be unfounded as these issues were resolved at conciliation for all employees who operate on the evening shift.
2. The bargaining group which the Union represents in the Company is comprised of all hourly paid personnel. From time to timepay systemsandwork patternsmay be negotiated in relation to specific groups. However, all general conditions of employment are negotiated and agreed, and applied 'across the board'.
3. While the Company attended the conciliation conference, it did not divert from its position that any matters raised which impact on the hourly paid group as a whole could not be the subject of a separate conclusion or cost outcome with any sub-section of the group.
4. A range of issues covering improvements in conditions of employment has recently been negotiated and agreed with the Union representing the group as a whole. The benefits will be extended to all hourly paid employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that a single negotiating unit exists within the company through which conditions of employment of general application are determined. The Court is further satisfied that the claimants are encompassed by the outcome of those negotiations.
Since both issues before the Court have recently been settled in negotiation between the Union and the Company, it is not appropriate that the current claims be pursued in respect of any individual category.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th June, 2003______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.