FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : B.D. MEDICAL SYSTEMS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of a Shift Premium
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to the payment of a shift premium. The Union, on behalf of 3 of its members, contends that the Company did not implement the payment of a shift premium when the Workers transferred to a different shift pattern. The Workers previously benefitted from a 35.5% shift allowance and found that upon transfer to the new shift pattern, the shift premium was reduced to 20%, with immediate effect. The Union maintains that the Workers were entitled to the higher shift premium as this was being paid to colleagues that were carrying out the same work on the same shift. The Company are of the view that the Workers voluntarily transferred to the new shift pattern and were aware of the reduced premium before doing so. The Union strongly disputes this.
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 4th June 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th October 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were no discussions or agreements on a reduced shift premium prior to the Workers' transfer to the new shift pattern.
2. The Workers transferred into a specific area of the Company and subsequently trained colleagues into this area. The Union contends that at this time the Workers were paid a shift premium of 20% whilst their colleagues, who were undergoing training, were paid the higher shift premium of 35.5%.
3.The Union is seeking pay parity for its members for the period from October 2007 to January 2008 when during this period, the Workers should have been paid the higher shift premium in line with their colleagues.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No discussions took place and no agreement was required from the Union as the Workers volunteered to transfer to the alternative shift pattern.
2. The Workers were fully informed of the move and the associated lower shift premium before the transfer took place.
3.Management contends that the Workers were paid the correct rate at all times and dispute the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties in this case. The Court is satisfied, on the basis of the information supplied to it, that despite the considerable lengths to which the Company went to properly manage the introduction of the new product line and the attendant transfer of staff between shifts, there is some merit in the Union case.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Workers concerned be paid the sum of €1,200 each in full and final settlement of all claims connected with this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
18th October 2010______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.