FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : REXAM BEVERAGE CAN IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Shift Pattern in Engineering Department / Payment of Transitional Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Company's decision to withhold pay increases due to craftsmen under phase one of the 'Towards 2016 Transitional Arrangements'. The Company states that it will pay the increases once the craftsmen accept the realignment of their working arrangements with the standard four-shift cycle but the Union claims that this is not 'normal ongoing change'. This 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 16th October, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th March, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is not acceptable for a very profitable employer to refuse to pay these increases while paying them to all other staff.
2. The Workers are complying with all aspects of the'Towards 2016 Transitional Arrangements' but the fundamental changes sought by the Company are outside the scope of normal ongoing change.
3.The changes sought by the Company can, however, be achieved through direct negotiations at local level.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Workers are obliged by existing agreements and contracts to co-operate with these changes.
2. These changes are a necessary part of the Company's continuous drive to be competitive and protect employment.
3.It is reasonable for the Company to withhold payment until the Workers agree to co-operate with these changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the non-payment of phase one of“Towards 2016 Transitional Arrangements”to craftsmen due since January 2009 and the Company’s requirement to align the craftsmen’s working arrangements with the production team rotas and its requirement to have consistent maintenance teams in place.
The Company stated that it will pay the phase one increase to the craftsmen when they comply with the requirement to work the shift rotas. However, the Union is of the view that the withholding of the pay increase is in breach of the terms of“Towards 2016 Transitional Arrangements”as the requirement to work the shift rotas constitutes significant change and therefore cannot be classified as “normal ongoing change”.
The Court notes that the craftsmen’s contracts of employment include a requirement to work hours in accordance with the 4-shift system operated by the Company and any changes which may be made thereto. The craftsmen have consistently been paid a premium of 33.33% for such working arrangements despite the fact that they have not always been required to work these shifts.
The Court further notes that a World Class Manufacturing agreement has been in place in the Company since 2000 which provides for full flexibility, team-working and no demarcation between the craft grades.
While the Union fully accepts the 2000 agreement it raised a number of concerns about craftsmen working outside their trade on occasions when other crafts are absent.
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the requirement to work the shift rotas has already been provided for in the craftsmen’s contracts of employment. The Court is strengthened in this view by the fact that the craftsmen have been paid the appropriate shift premium for this liability.
In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Union should accept the requirement to align the craftsmen’s working arrangements with the production team rotas and the requirement to have consistent maintenance teams in place. This arrangement should be reviewed after a period of three months when any difficulties which emerge should be addressed. The arrangement should again be reviewed after a further three months.
Secondly, the Court recommends that the Company should pay the 3.5% increase due with retrospection being paid in two equal instalments in line with the above mentioned recommended reviews.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th April, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.