FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LAKELAND DAIRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - AND - SHIFT WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Claim for increase in shift premium for night shift roster
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th September 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd December 2019.
3.UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The Union is seeking an improvement to the currently agreed shift allowance with the company to recognise night work.
2. The Union has amended it's claim to 33% for periods of night shift only and have indicated that they are open to a phased period of introduction of an improved allowance.
- 1. The Employer rejects the claim for an increase in the shift rate premium from 25% to 33% and has stated that the current agreement must be maintained.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of shift workers based across five sites for an increase in shift premium where the shift patterns includes a night shift. The current shift premium is T + 25% for rotating shift and T + 20% for fixed shifts. The Union sought an increase to T + 33% for the week they are rostered on nights as part of the shift pattern.
The Company submitted that the current pay and conditions of employment are fair in all the circumstances and the claim for an increase in the night shift premium is not justified.
The Court notes that the Company and the Union have recently completed an agreement on a three year pay deal, to run until 31stMarch 2021.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court notes that legacy shift arrangements in place for many years benefitted some shift arrangements in comparison to the shift patterns which are the subject of this claim. It also notes that the 4-cycle 12-hour shift pattern recently introduced at the behest of Union members was designed on a cost neutral basis.
In all the circumstances, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union’s claim at this time. The Court is of the view that in the context of the next round of pay negotiations the parties should examine the shift pattern and payment arrangements to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome for both parties. In making this recommendation, the Court makes no comment on the merits of the Union’s claim.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
RK______________________
05/12/2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Richard Kennedy, Court Secretary.