FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BMD & CO LTD - AND - 8 MAINTENANCE FITTERS (REPRESENTED BY UNITE THE UNION & CONNECT TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Shift Premium Pay
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 was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 7 October 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 March 2020.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions are seeking a shift premium increase from 25% to 33.33% as they claim that 33.33% is the norm in the sector when night work is involved in the shift rotation.
2. The Unions reject claims by management that a paid lunch break & 1 hour per day travel time has a total value in excess of 33.33%, as they claim that travel time is standard in the sector and that the paid lunch break is part of a separate agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the workers are paid a premium of 25% plus 1 hours travel time and a paid lunch break has a total value in excess of 33.33%.
2. The Employer also mentions a separate site where 25% premium is paid for an 8 day shift rotation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The dispute relates to the rate of shift premium payable to eight maintenance fitters (‘the Workers’) employed by BMD & Co Limited (‘the Company’) on a client site. The client operates in the pharmaceutical sector. The Workers currently receive a 25% premium for working an eight-day shift rota that includes night work. The Unions submit that the industry norm for such a shift pattern is a premium of 33.3%.
The Workers’ work pattern is as follows: four days on, followed by four days off. The days on include two twelve-hour days (7.00 am to 7.00 pm) followed by two twelve-hour nights (7.00 pm to 7.00 am). The Unions gave examples of seven pharmaceutical sites where a shift premium of 33.3% is payable to maintenance workers whose shift pattern is identical to that of the Workers who are the subject of the within dispute.
The Company submits that it also deploys maintenance fitters on a second client site (also in the pharmaceutical sector) where – by agreement with the Unions – it pays a 25% shift premium to workers working an eight-day shift pattern. The Company also submits that it provides the Workers who are the subject of this dispute a half-hour paid lunch break one hour’s paid travel time. Those additional benefits, according to the Company, combined with the 25% shift premium, equate to a rate which exceeds 1.33 times the current SEO rate.
In reply, the Unions submit that the workers on the Company’s second client site do not work nights as part of their eight-day rotation. The Unions also submit that the one-hour travel time is the norm in the construction sector and the paid lunch break is a separate arrangement.
Recommendation
The Court accepts the Unions’ submission that the industry norm for maintenance fitters working an eight-day shift pattern that includes night work is basic pay plus a premium of 33.3%. Accordingly, the Court recommends concession of the Unions’ claim from the date of the within Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
DC______________________
20 March 2020Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.