FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONOCO PHILLIPS IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of Agreement on time off for Shift cover, Implementation of pension adjustment agreement, and a Pay Parity Claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues in this case relate to a dispute between SIPTU and Conoco Philips Ireland in relation to three issues.
(1) Implementation of an agreement on Pension Adjustments,
(2) Interpretation of an agreement on time off for shift relief,
(3) A pay claim for parity between two work locations.
The Union's position is that an Agreement was concluded between the parties in May, 2004, which stated that all elements of salary (except reserve hours) would be made pensionable by June, 2007. The Company has not applied the Agreement to date. The Union requests that this be done as a matter of urgency.
The parties are also in dispute in relation to the interpretation of an Agreement relating to time off for providing shift cover. The Union's position is that when a day worker provides shift cover, the agreed time off should not include Saturdays or Sundays (or Bank Holidays where relevant) on the basis that these days are already considered as rest days. This, it is claimed is in line with the provisions of the agreement and with custom and practice in the Company over a long period of time.
The Company's position is that it has incorrectly applied the agreement in the past but must correct the practice. It's position is that Saturday and Sunday should be included as part of the rest period following shift cover.
In relation to the pay parity claim, the Union contends that both operations are similar and that the nature of the work carried out is comparable. It is seeking that the rate of pay at the Bantry Terminal be applied in line with rates of pay at the Whitegate Refinery.
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 issues in dispute were referred to the Labour Court on the 7th February, 2007 and 28th March, 2007. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th December, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in breach of the Annualised Hours Agreement relating to pension Adjustments. All elements of salary were to be included in pension entitlements by 2007. This has not been done.
2. The workers providing shift cover are day workers. They are off on Saturdays, Sundays. If they provide shift cover, these days off should not be included as rest days after a shift has finished. The provisions of the Agreement, to have six days off, should begin after these "normal" rest days.
3. The Union were prepared to resolve the shift cover issue by accepting 5 days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) instead of the agreed 6 days off. This was not acceptable to the Company.
4. The pay parity claim is valid on the basis that both premises operate in a similar way with workers in each plant carrying out comparable work. The workers in the Bantry Terminal have contributed to the Company's Financial success. It is unacceptable that they are treated less favourably than workers at the Whitegate Refinery.
5. The pay parity claim has been discussed since 2001. At no time have the Company said it was precluded under National Wage Agreements. An expectation has been created among the workers that this valid claim will be considered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agreement on shift cover has been incorrectly applied. The rest days after working shift relief should include Saturday and Sunday on the basis that the workers in question becomes shiftworkers for the period of cover.
2. The pay parity claim is rejected on the basis of the differing nature and level of work between the two plants. The workers in the Bantry Terminal are not paid out of line with comparable employees.
3. The pay parity claim is cost increasing and precluded under the terms of the current National Wage Agreement (Towards 2016)
4. The Company will adhere to all agreements relating to Pension Adjustments but must have flexibility from the workers in relation to the application of the agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union referred three claims to the Court, namely: -
1. Implementation of an agreement on Pension Adjustments,
2. Interpretation of an agreement on time off for shift relief
3. A pay claim for parity between two work locations.
An additional claim relating to the use of disciplinary procedures was not pursued at the hearing.
For its part the Company asked the Court to recommend: -
1. That employees at its Bantry Bay Terminal honour the 2004 new Work Practices / Annualised hours Agreement by providing the flexibility agreed and cooperating with the revision of a year planner.
2. That the Union’s members cooperate fully with normal ongoing change as per paragraph 1.2 of the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016.
The Court has considered the extensive submissions made by both parties and recommends as follows: -
Pension Adjustments
The Agreement between the parties dated 27th May 2004 on Annualised Hours provides in clear terms that all elements of salary, with the exception of reserve hours, will be made pensionable on a phased bases by June 2007. It further provides that the pensionable element of salary will be eligible for VCIP calculation.
This commitment should be honoured immediately on acceptance of this Recommendation. Any loss suffered by employees in consequence of the Company’s failure to implement the agreed phasing arrangements should also be made good.
Shift Relief
The Court is satisfied that the Company allowed the disputed arrangement to operate for an extended period. In so doing the Company gave credence to the belief that those arrangements were acceptable and in accordance with the Agreement. In the Court’s view the disputed arrangements are out of line with the practice in industry generally and are not sustainable. The Court recommends that the practice of discounting Saturdays and Sundays from consideration as rest days should cease and that the arrangements proposed by Management should apply.
Having regard to the background circumstances in which this practice came about and was allowed to continue, the Court believes that some element of compensation should be provided to those affected.
The Court recommends that those affected by the discontinuance of the current arrangements should receive two additional days annual leave in the leave years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010. This should be a once-off and non-recurring concession.
Pay Claim
The Court does not accept that the fact that both operations are in common ownership in itself provides justification for a claim for pay parity in circumstances where pay rates were historically determined independently.
In any event the Company have claimed that the Union’s claim is precluded by the stabilisation provisions of Towards 2016.
It is noted that while this claim has been under discussion between the parties since 2001 the Company never previously relied on this or the corresponding provision of earlier agreements. This undoubtedly created an exception that the claim would be considered on its merits.
Nonetheless the Court is bound by the terms of the National Agreement and accordingly it must hold that since the claim is cost increasing it is precluded by the terms of the Agreement. The Court therefore recommends that this claim should not be pursued further at this time.
Matters Raised by the Company.
The Court recommends that the employees provide the flexibility sought by the Company in line with the commitments contained in the Annualised Hours Agreement. Employees should also cooperate fully with normal ongoing change in line with the requirements of Towards 2016.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th December, 2007.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.