LCR18201

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/05/114

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR18201

(CC006767-03)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

DIAGEO BAILEYS

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr Nash

SUBJECT:
1. 1. Shift Rates for Nights 2. Workwear.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Company manufactures and supplies Baileys Irish Cream liqueur to domestic and global markets, and Smirnoff Vodka to the domestic market. There are over 200 employees located at the Nangor Rd, Clondalkin site. The Unions claim before the Court concerns two issues:

- a. Shift Premium for Permanent Night Staff
  b. Compensation for withdrawal of laundry service for protective workwear.
The Union contends that traditionally 33.3% had been paid for this shift and that management, in response to corporate pressure to reduce costs, has undermined existing agreements and practices by pressurising groups of workers in the past to accept 28%. Currently there is no night shift but there is a possibility of this shift being in operation in the future and the Union seeks to establish a Shift Premium.

The Company is introducing new workwear for the staff, which will provide a better choice of quality and fits with a more modern and professional image going forward. Previously, the Company laundered workwear but now the staff will be required to launder the lighter workwear while it continues to launder heavy duty workwear. The Company offered compensation of €55 per worker based on analysis of the cost to the individual over a period of two years. The Union rejects the offer and is seeking a sum of €1000.00 per worker.

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 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th April 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. In 2002, following a rejection of Rationalisation Programme based on a change of Annualised hours, management moved to delete overtime working and created a Night Shift crewed by workers on fixed term contracts. While the shop stewards were organsising these new employees into the Union, management presented terms and conditions which were accepted through fear. The terms and conditions were to be a template for the future. The Union's initial concern was the Shift Premium of 28% which was paid for Night Shift. Since then management have insisted on this rate being paid to approximately 30 long term tempoorary employees on Night shift in 2004. The workers have claimed an historical rate of 33% Shift Premium previously. The Company is now attempting to undermine this.

2. Only Bottling Hall Operatives are being asked to forfeit the laundering benefit while other Industrial Operatives are retaining paid laundering and the former are of the view that this amounts to a discriminatory act. The Company's offer is unacceptable in that while it considered electricity, washing powder etc, it did not take into account, availability of a washing machine, iron, ironing board and additional labour costs.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. There are no plans to introduce a permanent night shift. The need has arisen in the past for a temporary shift and this might happen again. In the past a rate of 28% applied. The Company believes this is a fair and favourable rate when compared with market practice.

2. The offer made to the workers for laundering their own workwear is appropriate and the Company not prepared to carry unnecessary costs. There is no real saving to the Company with the new workwear policy.

RECOMMENDATION:

Two issues were referred to the Court - on shift premium for permanent night shift and compensation for withdrawal of laundry service for protective workwear.

Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends as follows:-

Shift Premium for Permanent Night Shift

The Company indicated to the Court that it might in the future have a requirement for permanent night shift at certain times. The Court understands that this shift will be a Monday to Friday shift and will be between 6½ and 7 hours in duration.

Based on this detail the Court is satisfied that the Company's proposal to pay T + 28% is reasonable and recommends that it should be accepted by the Union.

Compensation for withdrawal of laundry service for protective workwear

The Court recommends that the Company's offer should be increased to €300 per person in full and final settlement of this claim.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Caroline Jenkinson
19th May, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.