FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MULTI PACKAGING SOLUTIONS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Pay Parity with Night Manager
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 9 April 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18 June 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Day shift supervisors have the same responsibilities as the night supervisor when management have left the site at the end of the day.
2. Due to the fact that day shift supervisors have the same responsibilities as the night shift supervisor, they should be paid the same payment for that period of time.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Night shift supervisor has more responsibility that his counter-parts on day-shift, as management support is not readily available during unsociable hours.
2. There is no justification or sustainable case to align the day and night Supervisor premia to 20% when the existing allowances of 10% and 20% are already in excess of the norms across MPS and the industry generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
It is common case that the allowance at issue is an agreed allowance which is paid in respect of responsibility carried by Supervisors.
The Trade Union submits that the two day shift supervisors who work a two shift cycle and who are paid a 10% allowance carry the same responsibility as the night shift supervisor who works permanent nights and is paid an allowance of 20%. The Union seeks an increase in the day shift supervisors’ allowance to 20% for shift hours worked between the time of departure of managers from the site and 11.00pm on the week when a day shift supervisor works those hours.
The key proposition supporting the employer’s position is that managers are commonly on site until 6.30pm to 7.00pm and are available as a support on site up to that time. Thereafter, the employer submits, managers are available by phone to provide operational support when required and to return to the site where necessary up to 11.00pm. The employer submits that the night shift supervisor does not have such support after 12.00 midnight.
The Trade Union shares the employer’s position as regards the availability of operational support to the night shift supervisor after 12.00 midnight. The Trade Union rejects entirely the proposition that management are available to provide operational support when necessary between the time of departure of managers from the site and the end of the day shift supervisor’s shift at 11.00pm.
At the hearing of the Court neither party was able to provide the Court with a record of incidents where day supervisors made contact with managers after managers had left the site and neither were the parties able to provide details of any such calls and the nature of the alleged support which was sought. The Court was similarly unable to secure details as regards the alleged incidence of managers returning to the site to address matters having been contacted by the day shift supervisors.
In all of the circumstances the Court concludes that, given that the dispute is fundamentally concerned with the relative responsibility carried by the day shift supervisors versus the night shift supervisor, the minimum required of the parties is that they would resolve any disagreement on matters of fact. The Court therefore recommends that the parties engage locally to agree the factual position over the past 12 months in terms of the incidence of day shift supervisors calling managers after those managers have left the site and the nature of such calls. Similarly, the parties should agree the factual position as regards the incidence of management returning to the site after contact by a day shift supervisor over the same period. Finally, the parties should agree the factual position as regards the contention that managers are commonly available on site to 6.30pm or 7.00pm.
Having reached a common position on matters of fact the parties should attempt to resolve the within matter locally and through normal procedures thereafter as necessary.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
MK______________________
21 June 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.