FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOLIDEN TARA MINES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 7 CRAFT WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY UNITE & CONNECT) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Compensation for extra productivity arising from increased working hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 5 March 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27 April 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have now to attend work on 72 additional days with much increased travel cost.
2. They are losing circa €300 per week shift pay.
3. They are now working an additional 192 hours per year with no increase in pay.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A compensation payment in the amount of €40,027 per man has been put forward in good faith by the company as compensation for the craftsmen.
2. By any yardstick, it is an extraordinarily generous compensation amount for moving to days from a shift pattern that lasted only 2 years and 8 months.
3. It represents an extra payment of almost €300 per week per man for every week they spent working the 10.5 hour shift cycle.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties is the Unions claim for compensation. The claim is in respect of organisational changes which saw the workers moving off shift where they worked a 36.5 hour week back to a five day Monday to Friday 39 hour week. The workers are paid for a 40 hour week.
It is the Unions case that when the workers came off shift work in May 2017 they lost their paid half hour break and they were required to work additional hours. It is the Unions contention that when working on shift they worked an average of 36.75 hours per week with a paid break and that now they were being required to work a 39 hour week Monday to Friday with no paid break. The Union does not dispute that all times the workers have been paid for 40 hours and continue to be paid for a 40 hour week. However, the moving back to a 39 hour week has led to a big increase in travel costs for the workers and extra hours productivity that they have not been compensated for. The Workers are seeking to be paid compensation for the extra hours and extra travel.
The Company’s position is that the Workers are paid for a 40 hour week. With the exception of a period of two years and eight months they have always worked a 39 hour week therefore, the issue of compensation does not arise. When they were working the shift system which meant they only worked 36.75 hours the company did not seek to reduce their payment but continued to pay them for a 40 hour week.
It was not disputed that the Workers were returning to their original work pattern of 39 hour. It was agreed by the parties at the Court hearing that the issue of compensation for loss of shift was resolved as part of a collective process and was not before the Court. It was accepted by the Unions that the Workers had always been paid for a 40 hour week. In those circumstances the Court can see no merit in the Unions claim. The claim fails.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
1 May 2018.______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.