FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SWORDS LABORATORIES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Plus payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company pays an allowance of 8.33% to fitters who work on a continuous basis in the high containment (clean room) area known as P4. A continuous basis is defined,under the Company's conditions for payment of the allowance, as a period greater than three months. The allowance is a productivity payment for foregoing the morning tea break. The Union claims that the allowance should be paid to any fitter who works in the P4 area on a day one basis. Management rejected the claim. At local level negotiations the Company offered to reduce the three month waiting period to two weeks. The Union rejected the offer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in October, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 9th January, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All of the rationale applying to a permanently assigned fitter who is in receipt of the 8.33% allowance apply in equal measure to a fitter assigned on an intermittent basis.
2. One worker should be treated no less favourably than another when all the criteria applying in the P4 area are met by both of them.
3. When a fitter is assigned to P4 he should receive the 8.33% allowance for each day of attendance and there should be no waiting period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 8.33% payment is recompense for foregoing the ten minute early break. It is compensation for the ongoing loss and inconvenience of same over a prolonged period.
2. To administer the premium on a pro-rata basis in the event that a fitter covers for a day or two would be administratively extremely difficult and time consuming.
3. The Company has offered to pay the premium once a fitter is assigned for over two weeks to P4. This is the practice when employees from other departments e.g. chemists are assigned to P4.
4. Concession of the claim could lead to knock-on claims from workers in other departments.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. The Company has in place a policy for the payment of the P4 allowance to maintenance personnel who have been assigned to P4, which currently stipulates a requirement to be assigned for a continuous period "greater than 3 months". In response to the Union's claim the Court notes that the Company proposes to reduce this requirement to 2 continuous weeks. The Court is of the view that this proposal is a reasonable one and recommends its acceptance by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th January, 2004______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.