FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CONOCO PHILLIPS WHITEGATE REFINERY LTD - AND - EMPLOYEES OF CONOCO PHILLIPS WHITEGATE REFINERY LTD (REPRESENTED BY UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of hours of work and payment for Bank Holidays
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and Union concerning the interpretation of the hours of work and public holiday entitlements for Shift Supervisors and Process Leaders. The Workers concerned are employed on a 7 day, 12 hour continuous shift arrangement. Under this arrangement the Workers will each work a number of Public Holidays. In December 2000 the Company engaged in a Hay benchmarking process. The Union contends that the Hay report did not take into account its members specific working arrangements and that working a number of Public Holidays is specific to their job and not compensated for by the Hay job evaluation. The Company's position is that Public Holidays were taken into consideration when constructing the shift rota and that time off in the shift pattern included time owed for 8 Public Holidays.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th July 2009, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd June 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The requirement for these Workers to work a number of public holidays is an additional feature specific to their job not compensated for by the Hay job evaluation which places them on the same grade as day staff. This requirement should continue to be recognised as an additional responsibility not applicable to other staff on the same Hay grade.
2 Where a Worker is required to work on a public holiday it is both common and reasonable to provide for compensation in addition to the legal minimum required by the Working Time Act. Such additional compensation was well established for all shift employees long before 2000 and nothing in the agreement between the parties about the introduction of the Hay grades eliminated this entitlement.
3 The current system of staff pay grades did not carry forward or subsume any previously existing arrangement of compensation for working on a public holiday.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 All employees receive their statutory Public Holiday entitlements in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. They either receive a paid day off on the public holiday, a paid day off within a month of the public holiday, an extra day's annual leave or an extra day's pay within the existing shift rota.
2 Individual employee's contracts of employment clearly specify that public holidays work is part of the normal shift cycle. The Workers concerned receive more paid time off than day staff colleagues who are required to work a five day week.
3 The current shift arrangement has been in place since 2000 and the issue of public holidays was raised in December, 2007.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that current arrangement whereby a requirement to work on a Public Holiday was compensated for by time off in lieu at the number of hours actually worked rather than at a premium rate, was introduced in 2000. This was implicitly accepted at the time as part of the overall restructuring of pay arrangements.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court cannot see any justifiable basis upon which it could recommends a change in this arrangement at this time.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concessions of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st June, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.