FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BERU ELECTRONICS GMBH (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Shift premium rates
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures electronics for motor vehicles and is based in Tralee, Co. Kerry. The dispute concerns the application of shift premium to the Department/Production lines. The Union claims that the following shift premium pattern (3-3-2) applied until January, 2007:
Night shift @ 25%
Evening shift @ 25%
Day shift @16.60%
In 2001 there were only two shifts - 16.60% for day shift and 25% (up from 20% in November, 2001) for evening(in rotation)/night shift.
In January, 2007, the Company changed the shift pay to the following (3-2-2):
Night shift @ 25%
Evening shift @ 16.60%
Day shift @16.60%
The Company claims that the application of 25% for the evening shift was as a result of a computer error in 2005.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred the Labour Court on the 15th August, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th March, 2009, in Tralee, the earliest date available to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to the Company's unilateral change from 25% to 16.6% for the evening shift the differential translates as a loss of 2.8% when applied as a "mean" on earnings.
2. The shift premium of 3-3-2 applied toallworkers in the affected Department/Production lines, not a few individuals as the Company has implied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The issue arose as a result of a payroll correction made by the Company in January, 2005. The payment for the evening shift is 16.6% as per the Company/Union Plant Agreement.
2. The Company has not sought to recover the monies lost as a result of its error but merely tried to rectify the mistake.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has found considerable difficulty in reconciling the opposing positions of the parties.
In the circumstances of the case, the Court's view is that the matter should be resolved on the following basis:
(1) Each claimant should receive a lump sum of €500 to take account of the position from 2007 to date
(2) From the date of acceptance of this recommendation the shift rate for evening shift should be set at 20% going forward.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
2nd June, 2009______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.