LCR22644

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

MSD BRINNY
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Training / Redeployment.

BACKGROUND:

2.This matter 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 12 May 2022, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. Labour Court hearings took place on 21 June and 22 August 2022.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union submits that the relationship between the Employer and its Members has declined over the past number of years and moving employees from a 4 shifts to straight days rota while training with an income loss of 33% will have a devastating effect particularly when workers are facing a cost of living crisis resulting in inflation and soaring costs.

2. The Union states that the Employer's insistence to move employees from 4 shifts to straight days for this training will result in the Employer disenfranchising and demoralising the same employees who Management turn to and depend upon to produce the high volume of product for 2023 and 2024.

3. The Union requests the Court to recommend in the Union's favour by paying Shift premium to the Process Operative Technician Group for the duration of the training.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer states employees who do not wish to transfer to the new arrangements have been provided with the opportunity to avail of a generous redundancy package. Those who wish to stay in the business can move to day work for the required period of retraining and then revert to shift working as soon as the required skillset is achieved.

2. The Employer states the main loss to the employees concerned on their current guaranteed weekly earnings is the difference between a 42- and a 39- hour week in circumstances where they are not working a 42-hour week.

3. The Employer state they have no objection to entering further discussions regarding the conditions attached to the Employer proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Dispute
The within dispute concerns the remuneration arrangements to be applied to a group of Workers at MSD Brinny (‘the Company’) during a sixteen-week period of mandatory training.

For the duration of the training period, the Workers have been stood down from their normal four-cycle shift pattern as the training is being completed on days. As a consequence, the Workers are at the loss of their shift premium and overtime payments.

The Court heard the Parties firstly at an in-person sitting in Cork on 21 June 2022. On that occasion it appeared to the Court and to the Parties that that their dispute could be resolved, or at least narrowed, through further local engagement.

The Court facilitated the Parties with an opportunity to engage on that basis and received an update in writing from both Parties subsequently in late July 2022. Although some progress had been made in the intervening period, the Parties indicated that they required further assistance from the Court. They were, therefore, invited to attend at a virtual hearing of the Court on 22 August 2022.


The Company’s Position
Following the first Court hearing in June, the Company made an enhanced offer to the Union whereby the affected Process Operative Technicians (‘POTs’) would be paid a “Project Ursa Upskilling Payment” equivalent to their four-shift payment (52.99%) for the duration of the sixteen-week training programme. (This is an increase on the Company’s earlier offer of 38%.)

The Company further communicated that AIP (bonus) and Pension contributions for the duration of the training period would be paid on base pay only as the Workers are exclusively working days and not working shift.

The Company acknowledges that the Workers will be at some financial loss throughout the training period. It calculates this to be Eur282.55 net for sixteen weeks. The impact on the Workers’ pensions is calculated as a reduction of Eur140 gross per annum for those in the Defined Benefit Scheme and a total reduction in contributions of Eur252.00 (gross) for those in the Defined Contribution Scheme.


The Union’s Position
The Company’s revised offer is not acceptable to the Workers and was rejected by them. The Union is seeking payment of the full shift rate for the duration of the training period (which it believes may extend beyond the sixteen weeks indicated by the Company) and it does not accept that the Workers should be at any financial loss as a consequence of being placed on mandatory training to facilitate the Company.

The Union, furthermore, disputes the accuracy of the Company’s calculation of the losses that the Workers would incur under its (revised) proposal. The Union submits that the Workers’ losses would continue to accrue in the event that the training period continues beyond sixteen weeks. The Union also submits that there is a well-established custom and practice in the Company of paying Workers in full during periods of mandatory training.


Recommendation
The Court recommends concession of the Union’s claim in this instance. However, the Court further recommends that the Parties - at earliest available opportunity - engage locally, and with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission if necessary, with a view to achieving a comprehensive agreement in relation to the arrangements that will apply during any future periods of mandatory training.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.