FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SCHIEDEL CHIMNEYS SYSTEMS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Shift Premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures chimney systems and flues for the construction industry. The Company, in order to reduce excessive overtime and meet production requirements at viable costs, changed the working hours as follows:
- (a) 7am - 4pm Monday – Thursday and
7am - 12 midday on Friday.
(b) 9.30am – 6pm Monday - Thursday
9.30am - 5pm on Friday
The Union's claim is that the new working hours constitute shift working and that a shift premium should be paid. The Company rejects the Union’s claim and states that the work pattern is not shift and there is no unsocial hours element in it. The Company did however offer a once off lump sum of €40.00 each for co-operation involved.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th June, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union accepts that the shift payment sought in this case was not one to reflect the norms of double day shift in the industry generally but that workers would accept a premium in the range of 10% for the change.
2. The Union argues that the effect of the change has had a negative effect on the earning potential of workers.
3. The Company may argue that workers should be receiving increased bonus payments, because all the production is included in bonus calculations, whereas in the past production done on overtime was excluded from bonus calculations. The Union reject this and states that there has been a drop in earnings over a four week period in excess of €150, taken over a year would be in excess of €1,950.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company rejects the Union's claim as it does not believe the work pattern causes the employee to work outside the accepted definition of day work.
2. The Company argued that many other industries work patterns of similar hours and do not pay any form of shift allowance.
3. The Company must maintain its competitiveness and any concession in this area would put it at a serious disadvantage.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court arose when the Company made changes to the hours of work and the Union sought the payment of a shift premium. The Company rejected the claim for a shift premium and instead offered to pay a once off lump sum of €40.00 each for the co-operation involved.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that a shift premium is not warranted for the working pattern introduced by the Company. The Court notes that management are contemplating the introduction of a shift pattern in the future and are prepared to discuss its introduction with the Union.
In the meantime, the Court recommend that the Company’s offer should be increased to €250.00, which should be paid to each of the workers who co-operated with changing their working hours to the new pattern.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th_October, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.