FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FLAIR INTERNATIONAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Loss of shift pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of shower enclosures and shower trays for the Irish and export market. The claim involves 4 workers who, from 1993 to 2003, enjoyed a 14 % premium (worth €47.35 per week) for shift work. In November, 2003, the workers were moved to day work and lost the 14 % premium as a result. They are deployed to different sections in the factory depending on work available. The reason for the move was a fall in demand for the products. The Company continued to produce the units until February, 2004, when production ceased. The Company is hopeful that a new type of unit will be produced in the future. The Union is seeking that the Company either restore the shift premium or that the workers be offered redundancy.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of March, 2004, in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of June, 2004, in Cavan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The workers concerned are some of the longest serving in the Company, having between 20 to 30 years' service.
2. The reduction of €47.35 represents a substantial loss of earnings for the 4 workers. However, if the Company were to continue paying the shift premium it would not be at a great cost (less than €200 per week) to the Company.
3. The workers have no idea from day to day which section they will be employed in. This represents a serious decline in conditions for them and practically amounts to constructive dismissal.
:
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The Company had no choice but to discontinue the shift work as demand for the product had ceased.
2. The move to day working does not represent a cessation of shiftwork. The Company reserves the right to redeploy the workers if shiftwork is required in the future.
3. The transfer to day work was in accordance with the Company/Union agreement. The Company continued to pay the premium for six weeks in accordance with custom and practice.
4. The Company has made an offer of €1,016 to the workers in an effort to resolve the issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has had regard to the exceptionally long service which the claimants had on the discontinued shift. In these circumstances, the Court believes that the compensation offered by the Company should be further improved upon.
The Court recommends that the claimants should retain the shift allowance of 14% for a period of 18 months from the date on which the shift was discontinued. Should the shift be reinstated during or after this period, the claimants should be reassigned to it.
This recommendation is made in the exceptional circumstances of this case and should not be regarded as having any precedence value and should not be relied upon or quoted in any other case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th July, 2004______________________
PM/CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.