FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRITVIC IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Shift Rate for day/evening workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court is a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for an increase in the day/evening shift premium from the current rate of 17.5% to 20.5%.
In October 2000 an on site agreement known as "The Operations Change Agreement" was concluded between SIPTU and Management. Contained in this Agreement was the shift rates as they applied to various shifts. The rate for the 2 shift day/evening was 17.5% and the 2 shift evening/night was 23.5%.
In August/September 2010 Management announced its intention to implement full shift on the Kylemore site. During a subsequent conciliation conference at the LRC the Managing Director stated that the 23.5% paid for the day/evening shift was paid in error, and in light of this they would pay a shift rate of 20.5% until 31st March 2011 at which point it would then revert to 17.5%.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations
Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th April 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th August 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that it is inconceivable that Management was unaware of the shift rate it was paying.
2. The Union maintains that given the fact that its members had been paid the 23.5% shift premium for almost 10 years, the Unions compromise claim of 20.5% with retrospection to 31st March 2011 is reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company contends that as there is a collective agreement on shift rates for all the various work patterns in Kylemore Factory that this agreement should be honoured.
2. The Company maintains that if it were to concede this claim for a 3% increase in the day/evening rate then it would erode the relativity of the permanent night rate. This would not fairly reflect the degree of unsociability of the permanent night shift, relative to the days/ evening rotation.
3. The Company maintains that this is a cost increasing claim and has no basis other than to increase already high wage costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the basic facts surrounding this claim are in dispute between the parties. It is the Union's position that the disputed payment has been paid erroneously for ten years. The Company's position is that the error continued for less than two years.
The Court cannot make any recommendation which might assist in resolving this dispute in the absence of agreement on the basic factual context in which it arose.
The Court recommends that the parties resume discussions in conciliation with a view to establishing the factual position concerning the period over which the disputed payments were made for rotating day/evening shift working, and the numbers who were in receipt of the erroneous payments.
For the purpose of assisting the parties the Court also wishes to express its opinion that if it transpires the Company's understanding of the timeframe over which the disputed payments was made is correct its offer of a five month 'parachute arrangement' is reasonable. If, however, the Union's understanding is correct the duration of that arrangement should be significantly extended.
In either event the Court would not be disposed to recommending concession of the Union's claim for a shift rate of 20.5%.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th August 2011______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.