FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HILTON FOODS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Shift Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union about a change in Shift pattern. The Company proposal of reducing the current shift allowance premium of 25% to 16.76% is rejected by the Union. In 2007 the Company proposed changes to the engineering shift pattern. In January 2008 the Company met with the engineers and informed them the need for a new shift pattern. This consisted of a 2 cycle shift pattern and an on-call provision. The shift premium proposed by the Company was 16.76% plus an extra 8.24% to compensate for the provision of the on-call service. It is the Union's claim that the new shift pattern does not warrant a reduction in the shift premium from 25% to 16.76%. The Company's position is that the shift premium is not out of line with industry norms.
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 could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th January, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The new shift pattern infringes on the workers work life balance. While on a day off an engineer will still be on-call so that the Company has an engineer at its disposal in case of emergency.
2 The Company are trying to reduce the shift premium rate from 25% to 16.76% while at the same time maximising the hours worked by the engineers.
3 The Company have increased the hours of cover significantly. There is now an engineer available in case of a breakdown 24 hours a day, 7 days a week while the basic shift rate is reduced and an extra payment is introduced for an on-call service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 All appropriate consultation and agreement was undertaken prior to the implementation of the new shift pattern. A review of the new shift pattern took place six months after its introduction. Both the Company and the engineers were happy that the new shift pattern was satisfying the Company's requirements and the needs of the engineers.
2 There has been no loss of overall earnings as a result of the shift change and the introduction of the on call system. Salary earnings are on a par with those prior to March 2008.
3 The Union's claim is cost increasing and cannot be sustained by the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions. The matter before the Court concerns the newly structured shiftworking arrangements devised in January 2008 (and operated since March 2008). The Court notes that while the Union accept the working pattern of the new arrangements it does not accept the level of premium paid.
The Court has examined the working pattern of the shiftworking arrangement and is satisfied that a composite arrangement has been entered into and when the appropriate premia for shift and on call are factored in, a composite premium is arrived at, all of which comprises of the following :
-it operates on the basis of having three crews of Engineers included in the working pattern;
-it includes an “on-call” roster of one week in every six weeks and
-it yields a weekly premium payment of 25% for the overall arrangement.
The Court recommends that both parties should accept this interpretation of the working arrangements/premium for the Engineers involved.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd January, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.