FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES T/A HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GARRETT ENGINE BOOSTING SYSTEMS) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR17808.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court relates to the application of Public Holidays for seven day four-cycle shift operatives, emanating from the introduction of an Annual Hours Agreement in July, 2002.
The dispute originally 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 did take place on the 9th March, 2004 and Labour Court Recommendation LCR17808 was issued on the 7th April, 2004 which stated “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”.
The matter was referred back to the Court by the Union on the 20th January, 2005. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Under the existing Agreement workers are paid at a rate of double time for all hours worked on a public holiday and have a day off in lieu for 4-cycle seven shift operatives. The Company must honour this agreement.
2. The Union proposed a number of solutions to resolve the dispute, including the setting up of a holiday fund, payment of holiday vouchers, inclusion of value of three public holiday into basic (which is the average number of days per year a 4-cycle shift operative would work) being inserted into salary.
3. The Company's final offer of time and half for each hour worked and a day off in lieu has undermined the Company Agreement of the past three years and should be looked upon as an attempt to reduce the Terms and Conditions of the 4-cycle shift operatives.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 From a business perspective the Company continues to be under pressure to continue and reduce costs, any additional costs incurred makes it uncompetitive.
2. The Company has made a genuine effort to resolve the issue and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. It has tried to adopt a fair and reasonable solution to address this claim.
3. It is the Company's view that the present 4-shift salary is among the top salaries paid to general operatives in the Country, and this more than adequately covers the holiday issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union’s claim is for 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 Court has already issued Labour Court Recommendation No 17808 on this matter.
The Court had some difficulty in dealing with the claim 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.
Labour Court Recommendation No 17808 recommended :
- “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.”
As no resolution could be found, the claim has been referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
In an effort to address the continuing difficulties the Company offered time and a half for hours worked on the public holiday plus a day off in lieu and deduction of twelve hours from the bank of reserved hours. This was not acceptable to the Union who stated that the agreement which operated before the introduction of annualised hours provided for double time for the hours worked plus time off in lieu, and that that agreement had never been rescinded.
This agreement was not referred to or amended on the introduction of the annualised hours system.
On the basis that the issue of entitlements in respects of public holidays was not addressed on the introduction of the annualised hours system, the Court has no alternative but to uphold the agreement, which pre-existed that introduction. The Union sought the restoration of the original terms of the agreement and if conceded, it has given a commitment to entering discussions with the Company on the introduction of a voucher system or a holiday fund, in order to address some of the Company’s concerns.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Union’s claim and recommends that discussions should commence immediately between both parties on the above lines.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th July, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.