FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : LEO PHARMA DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Application of Company/Union Agreement governing loss of overtime earnings. 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 13 December 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 March 2022. UNION’S ARGUMENTS: 3. 1. The change from a 24/7 to a 24/5 shift pattern in 2020 was not instigated by the Union's members. 2. Workers should be compensated using the formula set out in the 2009 Agreement on Loss of Earnings. 3. The procedures of the 2009 Agreement are clear and set out a three-year time limit between claims, easing the burden on the Employer. EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS: 4. 1. The 2009 Agreement on Loss of Earnings does not consider 24/7 shift working and is not applicable to the introduction of a new shift pattern. 2. The Employer must be in a position to change shifts in response to market demands. 3. The Employer submits that the agree compensation procedure for loss of shift premia should apply when moving shift patterns. RECOMMENDATION: A collective agreement in place since 2009 provides a compensation mechanism for loss of overtime earnings arising from (a) changes to work practices (‘non-fluctuating’) and (b) fluctuating overtime levels. A seperate agreement provides a compensation mechanism for loss of shift premia in shift step down arrangements. It is accepted that these agreements do not address how the loss of 3 hours rostered overtime, forming part of a 24/7 shift cycle, should be addressed when a worker moves away from that shift to another shift cycle. The company submits that 24/7 shift working was not foreseen when the 2009 Loss of Earnings Agreement was concluded. The 2009 Agreement is not applicable, as no new change to work practices occurred, as happens when introducing a new shift arrangement. Three hours rostered overtime forms part of the core working hours of a 24/7 shift cycle. The company must be able to flex shifts up and down in response to market demands. While the company was loss making in 2019, 2020 and 2021, it is hopeful that, with investment, it will return to 24/7 shift working in the future. The Company submits that the agreed compensation mechanism for addressing loss of shift premia when moving from one shift pattern to another should apply. In 2021, the Company put forward a proposal for a new composite agreement, incorporating the 2009 Agreement, where: Compensation from loss of shift premia provisions - remain unchanged Compensation for three hours rostered overtime when coming off 24/7 shift, replicates the provisions for compensation for loss of shift premia The ‘fluctuating’ loss of overtime provisions - remains unchanged The ‘non-fluctuating’ loss of overtime provisions - remains unchanged The company proposal was rejected. The Union submits that the move from 24/7 to 24/5 shift working in 2020 was not instigated by the Workers. It accepts that 24/7 working was not contemplated when the 2009 Agreement on Loss of Earnings was concluded. The agreement is silent on the matter. However, it provides an appropriate mechanism to compensate workers for loss of any overtime earnings and that the workers should be compensated using the formula set out in that agreement. The procedures within the Agreement are clear and set out a time limit of three years between claims. The Court has considered the written and oral submission made by both parties. The parties acknowledge that the three hours rostered overtime, worked as part of a 24/7 shift cycle, differs from other overtime arrangements that apply within the company. The rostered overtime within a 24/7 shift cycle forms part of the standard core hours, where average weekly hours are 42 hours (39+3 hours).The parties already have an agreement in place to address the reduction in shift premia that can arise where an employee moves off a 24/7 shift to another shift pattern. The Court is of the view that the compensation formula provided in that agreement is the appropriate formula to address the loss of earnings arising from a move from a 24/7 shift cycle to another shift arrangement. In those circumstances, the Court is of the view that the company’s proposal of 2021 - which addresses compensation for the loss of 3 hours of regular rostered overtime worked as part of 24/7 shift and incorporates existing compensation mechanisms for other loss of earnings - should be accepted in full and final settlement of this matter. The Court so recommends.
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Cathal Nurney, Court Secretary. |
