FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Perfect Attendance Bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures 'smart' electronics for the Automotive Industry and employs 240 workers in Tuam Co. Galway. The dispute concerns the Perfect Attendance Bonus (PAB) scheme, in place since 1999. The Company introduced the PAB scheme of its own volition. Management claims the scheme was introduced to encourage employees to be at their place of work at shift start and at all times rostered, in order to maintain the continuous manufacturing process. The PAB amounts to €127 per quarter. At present workers taking time off, which they have worked up, over normal working hours, are disqualified from payment of the PAB. The Union claims that the practice of working up time in exchange for time off should not constitute an absence under the rules of the PAB. Management rejected the claim. 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 on the 15th July, 2004 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 3rd November, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The practice of taking time off in exchange for time worked up at flat rates has always been a feature in the Company and this continues to be the case. From time to time some employees work up enough time in order to take time off outside normal shutdown periods. This is done for many reasons including family matters, childcare, family holidays etc,. The more normal situation is where an employee has used up all annual leave and needs a much shorter period off e.g. a few hours, a half day or one day.
2. The system in place is unfair as workers suffer a financial loss on the double. Time worked up in excess of 39 hours in any given week is banked at flat time so workers lose out on overtime rates and the Company gains. Workers then lose out on the PAB when they actually take the time off again. It is unfair that workers should suffer the loss of the PAB when at the end of each quarter they work an average of 39 hours per week at the basic rate of pay. As this amounts to perfect attendance workers should be granted the PAB.
3. The facility to work up time, for the purpose of the PAB, would not increase overall absenteeism levels at the plant. The provision of a facility to work up time increases the motivational impact of the PAB scheme. The facility to work up time is a feature of perfect attendance award schemes in many companies in the area.
4. The Union does not accept that agreement was reached in 2001 on the issue of working up time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At all stages since the introduction of the PAB scheme in 1999 and its acceptance by the Union members following a ballot of workers in 2001 Management has confirmed to the Union that working up time and unpaid leave was not included in the scheme. To allow working up time to be included would defeat the whole purpose of the PAB scheme.
2. The Company introduced the PAB scheme in 1999 without any prompting from the Union. It increased the benefit in 2001 and relaxed the rules slightly for qualification. However, the Company stressed and it was accepted and agreed by the Union that working up time and unpaid leave would not be included in the PAB scheme. The Company has already made changes to the scheme and feels that if it is eroded any further then it will be of no benefit to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
It became clear to the Court in the course of the hearing that there appears to be certain anomalies in the administration of what the Court accepts was an agreement as written in 2001 on the Perfect Attendance Bonus. These appear to arise in the areas of:
(i) control over planned absences
(ii) consistency in the application of the scheme
(iii) the question of overtime pay as well as attendance bonus being lost when taking time off already worked up.
In the context of the above, the Court recommends that the parties revisit the agreement at local level with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th November, 2004______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.