FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IO SYSTEMS LTD (REPRESENTED BY MR JOE LA CUMBRE) - AND - CWU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Various Issues
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 20 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act on the 22nd July 2016. Labour Court Hearings into the dispute took place on the 16th and 23rd of September 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. In LCR 20926 the Court recommended in relevant part as follows
The Company offer and the Union accept, until the current contract expires, a shift rate of 20% and 21% respectively to apply to the new shift pattern. Thereafter the shift rates should be restored to their current levels.
In light of that recommendation the Union contends that it is entitled to have the agreed shift rate restored with effect from 30 September 2016, the date on which the current contract expires..
2. As the proposed and agreed changes to shift patterns in the Regional Centres did not materialise until October 2015 the Company was not justified in reducing the shift rate in line with those changes until they took effect. Accordingly the Union is seeking the application of the shift rate appropriate to seven day working while it remained in operation. The Union submits that the period in question extends from January 2011 until October 2015.
3. The Union contends that the Company agreed a quantum of savings to be shared amongst the technician grade arising out of a self relieving cover agreement. It contends that it complied with the terms of that agreement and that the Company is seeking to reduce the agreed quantum in line with the reduced number of technicians remaining in the grade. It submits that the quantum agreed must be maintained and distributed amongst whatever number of technicians are employed in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Company submits that the Union side did not accept LCR 20926 and instead engaged in further discussions finally reaching agreement with the assistance of an independent facilitator. Accordingly it is not now open to the Union to seek to rely on that Recommendation.
2. The Shift rates in place in the Company are fair and reasonable and ahead of standard rates in industry. Accordingly the Company will not be in a position to tender successfully when the contract comes up for renewal if its rates are out of line with its competitors.
3. As, despite the best efforts of the Company, the Union resisted the revised shift rosters until October 2015 it cannot now seek compensation for its own refusal to adapt the spread of the working week in line with the revised shift rates. Finally the Company submits that the it is complying with the terms of the cover agreement by maintaining the relationship between the number of technicians the level of savings generated by the cover arrangements. It submits that the Union's claim in this regard cannot be supported as it has no financial or economic merit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds and recommends as follows
Shift Premium
In the context of the shift patterns currently in operation in the Company the Court recommends a shift premium of 25% be applied to all 5 and 5.5 days shift working patterns. The Court further recommends that the current 13% shift premium be increased to 18%
These rates should take effect from 1 October 2016.
Weekend Working – Reimbursement
The Court finds that this claim was the subject of arbitration between the parties. The Court finds no basis for disturbing the outcome of that arbitration process.
Flexible Cover Arrangement
The Court finds that this claim was the subject of arbitration between the parties. The Court finds no basis for disturbing the outcome of that arbitration process.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
7th October 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.