FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GARRETT ENGINE BOOSTING SYSTEMS - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Public holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 2002 agreement was reached between the Company and the Union on an annualised hours system which resulted in the substitution of basic pay and overtime by an annualised hours salary. It incorporated 220 reserved hours, which the workers are liable to work if they do not reach production targets during normal shift hours. The dispute before the Court is in relation to public holiday arrangements for seven day/four cycle shift operatives who work public holidays as part of their normal roster. Prior to the agreement workers on the four cycle shift were paid premium rates for working public holidays.
- 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 26th January, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th March, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union raised the issue of the four shift operatives on a number of occasions during negotiations and the Company agreed that the terms of the four shift cycle would remain as is but when the issue of public holidays was raised, the Company unilaterally decided not to abide by the agreement they themselves chose not to change.
2. There is no facility in the agreement to have public holidays hours worked usurped by the reserved hours.
3.Management told the Union that only relevant parts of the current agreements would change to facilitate the annualised hours agreement and all other elements of agreements would remain intact.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company paid for the reserved hours in advance and the requirement to pay overtime to those benefiting from the annualised hours agreement was eliminated. Currently few hours are called in. The Company in paying for the day and ensuring a day off in lieu along with using reserved hours to cover the remainder is fair and reasonable.
2. Overtime was eliminated on the introduction of annualised hours and therefore remuneration for working public holidays and the Unions claim that the workers be paid overtime would mean the reintroduction of overtime. The salaries paid are among the top paid to general operators in the country.
3. The four cycle shift workers have been called to work substantially less reserved hours than any of the other shift categories and the demand for overtime could reach a level which is unacceptable and unsustainable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought the application of double time plus time off in lieu for 4 shift workers operating an annualised hours system who are rostered to work on public holidays. The company indicated to the Court that the reintroduction of overtime would be totally contrary to the agreement on annualised hours which specifically eliminated overtime payments and introduced the concept of reserved hours which are hours paid at a premium rate, irrespective of whether they are worked or not.
In order to address the situation the company offered, a days pay for the day of the public holiday plus a day off in lieu and deduction of twelve hours from the bank of reserved hours. The Union saw no benefit in this proposal, as the full quota of reserved hours is unlikely to be called upon. This is perhaps due to the small call down of hours for four shift workers and/or to the fact that reserved hours are discounted on an annual basis and not on a more frequent basis.
In its consideration of the claim, the Court had some difficulty, as it was not possible to ascertain how the number of contracted hours to be worked in the annualised hours system was calculated and secondly, how public holidays were factored into that calculation. There is no reference to public holidays in the Annualised Hours Agreement, other than “there will be no requirement to work reserved hours on a public holiday for the purpose of this agreement”.
The Court accepts that one of the main purposes of introducing an Annual Hours System is to eliminate the requirement for overtime. In arriving at the agreed number of hours to be worked each year the system factors in a specific number of ‘reserved hours’ which are hours in excess of the contracted hours in order to provide cover during those times when overtime would have been traditionally used e.g. peaks in production, absenteeism, public holiday cover etc. These hours are paid at premium rates, are subsumed into the workers’ annual salary, are called upon as needed and are paid irrespective of whether worked or not.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the parties should have further discussions on the issue in dispute. Consideration of how public holidays are being treated in the context of the overall annualised hours system should be clearly highlighted. The Court recommends that in an effort to resolve this claim, consideration may be given to the option of a buy out arrangement, with new arrangements being put in place for the future.
In the event of failure to reach agreement, the parties may refer the issue back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th April, 2004______________________
JO'C/JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.