FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MOOREPARK TECHNOLOGY LIMITED (MTL) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. A new labour model that facilitates 24/7 operations in the plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union for (1) change to the shift rate paid for working nights; (2) for overtime to be paid outside rostered hours; and (3) for a new time and attendance system to be delayed until it is introduced into the whole campus. This 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 1st May 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st June 2015.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers are treated as public service employees for pension purposes and the FEMPI legislation was applied to them. On the other hand they are treated as private sector employees for pay purposes but have been refused the pay increases and other benefits negotiated in the dairy sector in recent years.
2. Due to the abolition of milk quotas the Union was informed of a plan to invest €10 million in the plant and introduce a 24/7 3-shift cycle.
3. The Workers are seeking a (1) 33% premium to be paid for 24 hour shift working on the basis that working a 24 hour shift-cycle is very different to working a 2-cycle 8-hour shift; (2) 25% premium to be paid for 2-shift cycle (early/late) with a maximum shift length of 8 hours; (3) if additional working is required, overtime should be paid after the 8 hour shift; (4) adequate notice period of 24 hours to be agreed and; (5) the Union have no opposition in principle to a new time and attendance system. However, the Company should wait until it is introduced across the campus.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was established in 1993 to facilitate technology transfer from Teagasc to the dairy sector. It currently employees 10 staff and this is projected to rise to 20 over the next five years.
2. The elimination of milk quotas will likely see milk production increase by up to 50% by 2020. This offers the Company the opportunity to grow and innovate in tandem and partnership with the industry.
3. During 2014 the Company Management successfully secured the agreement of its shareholders for a €10 million programme of capital investment to be undertaken over the years 2015 to 2018. As part of investment the Company requires restructuring of the labour model that facilitates 24/7 operations in the plant. If this cannot be agreed there will be no investment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends as follows:-
Shift Rate:-
The Court recommends that the Company introduce a shift rate of 25% for three-cycle shift working for all shifts worked within that cycle. If and when the Company requires four-cycle shift working the shift rate should increase to 33% for all shifts worked within that cycle.
Electronic Time and Attendance System:-
The Court recommends that the Company introduce the proposed time and attendance system on a pilot basis in the first instance.
Overtime after Rostered Shift:-
The Court recommends that the Company pay overtime rates to the affected staff for all hours worked outside of a rostered shift.
The Court further notes that the Company undertook to provide staff with one week’s notice of proposed shift or shift pattern changes.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
7th September, 2015.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.