FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARL ZEISS VISION LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Increase in shift premia.
BACKGROUND:
2. Carl Zeiss Vision Ltd. is a servicing operation engaged in the supply of prescription ophthalmic lenses for the European market, and is located in Wexford. A dispute has arisen between Union and Management, concerning the percentage of shift premium payable to the Employees on the permanent evening shift.
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 25th January, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th March, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current premium payable of 15% is at the lower end of the scale when compared with both local and National comparators.
2. The current evening shift premium is significantly disproportionate in relation to the 33.3% night shift premium and this is acknowledged by Management.
3. The cost offsetting measures suggested by Management would be difficult to apply as the evening shift premium only applies to one third of the General Operative group
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is a cost increasing claim and is therefore barred by 'Towards 2016'
2. The current premium paid for evening shift, falls within the range of such premia in manufacturing industry. The Plant faces stiff competition and Management are charged with bringing about a substantial reduction in the cost structure.
3. Notwithstanding the above, Management are willing to engage with the Union and go some way to addressing the claim for an increase in the evening shift premium if other anomalies such as the excessive number of paid breaks are renegotiated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the Union's claim should be the subject of further negotiations in the context of cost-offsetting measures, by those associated with that claim, involving the elimination of personal breaks.
This negotiations should commence as soon as practicable and should conclude within six weeks.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th April, 2009______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.