FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLANBIA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1). Payment for relief in Fermentation Room (2). Serrick 2 Operation - 7 Day Production (4 Cycle Working)
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Glanbia PLC in relation to the application of shift premia for relief workers in the Fermentation Room and the appropriate shift premia for a proposed change in the shift cycle within the Company.
The relief workers were initially in receipt of a shift premium of 25% for all hours worked. This has since been increased to 33.3% but only applies to the claimants for relief work actually carried out.
The Union contends that the increased premium should be applied to these workers for all hours worked. The Company contends that it would be highly inappropriate to apply the increases for all hours worked and argued that the new agreement concluded with the Union in 2005 provided for flexibility and mobility. As regards an increase in premia for seven day four shift cycle the Union is seeking an increase in premia to 42%.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that such an increase would be unsustainable and out of line with other agreements within the Glanbia group.
The matter was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 23rd November, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th December, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The application of the shift premium was initially 25% and applied to all hours worked. When agreement was reached with the Company and the premium increased to 33.3%, the relief workers only received the increased premium when engaged in relief work. This is unacceptable and at variance with previous practice within the Company.
2. The premium applicable for the current six day three shift cycle is 33.3%. The Company's proposal to increase the shift to a seven day four shift cycle should result in an entitlement to a higher premium. Increasing the premium to 42% is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and in line with similar shift cycles in other companies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The Company concluded an agreement with the Union on the basis of flexibility and mobility going forward. All employees received an increase in basic pay as a result. The claim as presented by the Union is inappropriate and unsustainable.
2. The Company cannot apply the increase in shift premia to the relief workers unless they are actually engaged in relief work. There was no agreement with the Union that the increased premia would apply to the workers for all hours worked. The claim is out of line with other industry norms and arrangements within the wider Glanbia group.
RECOMMENDATION:
Following consideration of the submissions made by the parties and being mindful of
the fact that a comprehensive agreement exists arising from LCR18194, which should be upheld by all the parties, the Court recommends as follows:-
1.Shift Premiums for 4 Cycle, 7-Day Working, Serrack 2 Area
On the basis that the Company's current offer equates to a premium of 28½% (but taking the rates of pay, as well as the increased level of unsocial hours into account) the Court recommends that this be increased on the same basis to 33.33% in full and final settlement of the claim.
2.Relief Operators (2) in Fermentation Room
On the basis that these workers will still attract the appropriate payment on those occasions when they are required to work in this area, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim as made by the Union but, in recognition of the unique position of these two workers, recommends as an exceptional measure that they receive a compensatory lump sum of €2000 each, on the clear understanding that this applies only in this case and creates no precedent in any other or future situation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
17th January 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.