INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED
- AND -
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Proposed plant agreement.
2. The Company, established in 1974, is based in Little Island, Cork. It is involved in the production of electrolytic manganese dioxide. It currently employs 100 staff. The dispute before the Court concerns the proposed plant agreement. There are two issues in the agreement in dispute.
(1) The payment of double time for working during lunch time for day staff and
(2) the date of implementation.
The Unions claim that the enhanced lunch time payment should apply to all crafts people irrespective of whether they are day or shift staff. The Company rejects the claim.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 18th of January, 2000. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of March, 2000.
3. 1. The Company made no effort to address the issue of fairness and equity in its proposal. The proposal discriminates against shift workers.
2. The enhanced lunch time payment should apply to all craft workers regardless of whether they are on day work or shift work. The agreement should be implemented from the 1st of December, 1999.
4. 1. The proposals were not sought by the Unions, they were initiated by the Company.
2. The proposal gives significant remuneration increases to all staff. It does not alter the differentials between day and shift staff. The agreement should be implemented from the 1st of April, 2000.
The Company offer is a comprehensive proposal covering all groups and while there may be more benefits for some employees rather than others, overall the package gives benefits to all.
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
On the question of the date of implementation of the agreement, the Court recommends that in return for acceptance by the employees of its proposals, the Company agree to make the date of implementation the 1st of January, 2000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th March, 2000______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.