LCR23155

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

BACKGROUND:

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 19 March 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 04 June 2025

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The issue of payment of the shift premium while on overtime has been separated from the issue of pay, and the Union therefore believe that it is not acceptable for the Employer to take the position of no cost increasing claims as a legitimate reason for not conceding the claim.
2. The union argue that overtime within the plant is at the discretion of management, and thus management have control of the cost to the business. The Union noted that there is an expectation that all employees undertake a reasonable amount of overtime, and that their members are requesting for the industry standards to apply when assisting the Employer in this regard.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Employer is not in a financial position to implement the change requested by the Union as this would significantly increase labour costs across the site at a time of decreased demand.
2. The Employer considered the Union request and analysed the implications, with a view to implementing this request. The Employer argues, however, that they cannot jeopardise the overall site by bringing about significant costs.

RECOMMENDATION:

The issue in dispute between the parties is in respect of a claim that shift payment be paid on overtime. The claim is in respect of 24 craft workers

 Connect submitted that it is the industry norm that overtime is paid at shift rate of pay and not basic rate. The Union raised this issue with the Employer in early 2023 as part of discussion on pay and terms of conditions. At the request of the Employer, they agreed to separate out this claim and to have separate talks under the auspices of the WRC. A new pay agreement was reached in March 2023, but this issue remains outstanding.

At conciliation the Employer view was that they could not concede the claim because of the potential cost and the potential for knock on claims.  The Employer also sought to rely on a no cost increasing clause in the pay agreement despite having agreed to this issue being processed outside of the pay agreement.  It is the Unions belief that paying overtime at shift rate is standard practise in the industry and they cited various example from the food and drinks sector who are applying it.  The Union concluded that having agreed to separate out the issue of shift payment it was not acceptable that the Employer was now trying to hide behind a clause in the agreement they had sought to extract this claim from. Overtime within the plant is at the discretion of management so they can control the cost to the business.

 IBEC on behalf of the Employer submitted that despite discussions locally and under the auspices of the WRC no agreement could be reached in respect of this claim. While only Connect are making the claim there is another Union on site who have placed the company on notice that they will be seeking this change as part of the next collective agreement. The Company set out the background to the shift cycle and gave details of the current overtime arrangements.  When the issue was at conciliation the Employer undertook a significant review of what it would cost to make the change. The review showed it would add an additional overtime cost of 1.1million based on the current quantum of overtime and therefore the company was not in a position to agree to the change. At the current time the company has lost orders and has had to action a headcount reduction. Having considered the Unions request, the Employer does not believe it can meet the cost of this change at this time.

 The Court having carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the oral submissions made on the day recommends that the parties have further local engagement on this issue and identify possible savings that could be off set against the cost of the change, with a view to finalising this issue as part of negotiations for the next pay round.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
ÁM	______________________
26 June 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.