FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DISTILLERS PERNOD RICARD - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Shift pay for pensionable purposes.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of 11 craft workers employed in the Company's glass bottling facility in Clondalkin, Dublin. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that a 20% shift allowance payable to these workers should be recognised as pay for pensionable purposes. It is the Union's contention that the hours of work that attract the allowance form part of the workers' regular and rostered hours and accordingly should be included in pension calculations. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that it is in breach of the terms of the current Company/Union agreement and furthermore is outside of the terms of the Company's pension scheme.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 12th December, 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th February, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that shift work has been in place since 2010 and forms part of regular and rostered hours.
2. Craft workers located in the Company's operations in Cork are currently in receipt of pensions on their shift pay.
3. The Union maintains that a separate cohort of employees based in this same location are also in receipt of pensions on shift pay.
4. The Union asserts that it is now the industry norm to include shift pay for pensionable purposes.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned currently enjoy favourable terms and conditions including existing pension benefits.
2. The Employer contends that it is unjustified to compare the terms and conditions enjoyed by these workers with workers based either in Dublin or in Cork as they hold completely separate terms and conditions as negotiated by their representative unions.
3. Concession of the Union's claim could potentially give rise to a multitude of knock-on claims which would be detrimental to the financial position of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court believes that the timing of the Union's claim is inappropriate.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend its concession at this time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th March 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.