FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KOSTAL IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Shift Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of two of its members in relation to the removal of a shift allowance previously paid to the Claimants. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for the re-instatement of a 25% rotating shift allowance that was removed by the Employer and replaced with a 10% shift allowance resulting from a unilateral change in the shift patterns worked by both Claimants. Furthermore, the Union is seeking the retrospective payment of the financial losses incurred by these Workers following the 15% reduction in shift allowance payments from January, 2011, until the present time. The Employer rejects the Union's claim and agreement could not be reached between the parties.
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 10th August, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th September, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimants were strongly opposed to the changes in their shift patterns and proposed alternative solutions by the Employer including redundancy and step down from their promotional positions, however, these were rejected.
2. The Claimants have suffered significant financial losses as a result of the reduction in the shift premium.
3. The Union, on behalf of its members, contends that the Claimants are receiving less pay than workers in lower level positions and is currently seeking the reinstatement of the original shift allowance.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is operating within its contractual rights to change shift patterns in accordance with business requirements.
2. The Employer is not in a position to pay the higher shift premium to the Claimants as the Claimants are no longer working the shift pattern which attracts the higher premium.
3. The Employer is of the view that the Claimants have been appropriately compensated with the continuation of payment of the shift premium for a period of time when they were not on the higher-paid shift pattern.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of two employees over the payment of a shift premium following a change in shift working hours.
The employees had operated a 12-hour rotating shift pattern and were paid a shift premium of 25%. In April 2009 due to its business needs the Company required the employees to change this pattern to a rotating day and evening pattern with the payment of an average of 10% shift premium, i.e. 0% for working days and 20% for working evenings.
The Union objected to the change in shift premium and the parties entered into a process of operating a number of different shifts on a trial basis between April 2009 and December 2010 during which time the 25% shift premium continued to be paid. The rotating days/evenings commenced in January 2011.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that the employees’ contracts of employment required them to be flexible to change shifts if so required by the Company’s operational requirements. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the employees should be paid compensation for the loss incurred in the reduced shift premium. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Company should pay them one-and-a- half times’ the annual loss, i.e. the loss of shift premium incurred by each employee in the period between 1stJanuary 2011 and 30thJune 2012.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st October 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.