FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABS PUMPS WEXFORD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Shift Premium Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to an increase in shift premia. The dispute arises from a decision of the Company in 2000 to cap overtime from 20% of the payroll to 10%. The dispute, at that time, led to a number of conciliation conferences and a subsequent Labour Court hearing which resulted in the issuing of Labour Court Recommendation LCR17103.
The Court recommended that the Company's method of calculating the compensation (twice the annual loss) be used and compensation be paid at the rate of 75% of the figure calculated. Subsequent negotiations at local level resulted in an agreement to review the shift premia, as most workers affected by the loss of overtime were to become shift workers. In return for the increase in shift premia the Union claims to have agreed to reduce the award of compensation from 1.75% to 1.5%. The shift premia was subsequently reviewed and an increase was awarded from July, 2003. A second review was to be carried out in July, 2005. The Union is claiming that the review to be held in July, 2005 was merely to agree an increase in the shift premia. The Company's position is that it committed itself to the review but not necessarily to any further increases in the shift premia. It further contends that the cost of the increase is unsustainable and precluded under national wage agreements as it is cost increasing.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 8th September, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th September, 2007 in Wexford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 A commitment was given by the Company to review the shift premia on two occasions, in July 2003 which resulted in an increase and in July, 2005, when no increase was paid.
2 It is unacceptable that the Company agreed to increase the premia and then refused to apply the increases. The increases sought are in line with rates that are paid in other Companies involved in the engineering sector.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company agreed to a review of the premia in 2005. It informed the Union on many occassions that the review simply was a review and not an acceptance that an increase would be awarded.
2 After the review was carried out it was clear that the shift premia payable by the Company compared favourably with comparable employments and an increase at the time was unwarranted.
3 The claim is cost increasing and precluded under national wage agreements. The claim, if conceded, will also have knock on effects within other areas of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted that the Company was committed to conducting a review of shift rates in 2005. In the Court's view, that review should have been conducted jointly with the Union and by reference to rates payable in comparable employments in the engineering sector.
The Court recommends that such a review should now be undertaken. If agreement is not reached on the outcome, the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th October 2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.