Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86937 Case Number: LCR10989 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH PLASTIC PACKAGING - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Dispute concerning six printers as to the number of hours which have to be worked to attract the weekly attendance payment.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the Union's undertaking to provide full shift
cover on a 40 hour basis the Court recommends that the Company
concede the Union's claim to pay the attendance bonus in respect
of 38.50 hours.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86937 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10989
CC861611 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10989
Parties: IRISH PLASTIC PACKAGING LIMITED
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning six printers as to the number of hours
which have to be worked to attract the weekly attendance payment.
Background:
2. The Company is engaged in the production of a range of plastic
packaging materials and currently employs a total of 70 in the
factory area (6 of whom are members of the Union) engaged in the
process of extrusion, printing and bagmaking. In 1979, following
negotiation, the Company introduced a weekly attendance payment of
#1.50 a week as part of a productivity agreement for the vast
majority of the work force. The workers concerned were required
to work a 40 hour week before they could qualify for this payment.
The intention was to improve the poor attendance record of some of
the employees who were disrupting continuity of production (the
Company operates a 3 cycle shift). In 1980, as part of an
agreement to work overtime at weekends to cater for seasonal
demands the Union sought the extension of the weekly attendance
payment to their members. This was conceded on the basis already
applying i.e. having completed a full 40 hour week (the basic
working hours for printers at that time were 39.50 hours for those
on shift work and 40 hours for those on days). In 1986, a further
reduction in the basic working week to 38.50 hours and 39 hours for
shift and day workers respectively was negotiated. This
agreement, following Labour Court Recommendation 10300, was to be
implemented from 30th June, 1986, subject to local negotiations to
minimize consequential cost increases. Following a meeting of
21st July, 1986 the Union sought the introduction of weekly
payment attendance allowance on the basis of a 38.50 hour week.
This was rejected by the Company. This lead to a ban on overtime
and the workers working a 39.50 hour week with some workers
suspended for breach of discipline. At a meeting of 26th
September, 1986 agreement was reached to return to normal 40 hour
working with an interim payment of the weekly attendance payment
on a 38.50 hour week basis. Three issues were to be referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. However at a
conciliation conference held on the 15th October, 1986 only one
item was discussed, the weekly attendance allowance. No agreement
was reached and on the 17th November the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour
Court hearing was held on 15th January, 1987, a date suitable to
both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) While the Company acknowledge the 38.50 hour week their
position is that our members must work 40 hours in
order to qualify for the weekly attendance payment. We
must insist on recognition of the 38.50 hour week by
means of payment of the weekly attendance allowance.
It is totally unreasonable for the Company to say that
they recognise the 38.50 hour week yet refuse to pay the
weekly attendance allowance unless 40 hours have been
worked.
(b) The Union accepts the necessity to work a 40 hour week
to provide full shift cover.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The weekly attendance payment has, since its
introduction, been clearly related to the essential 40
hour 3 shift cycle to maintain continuous production
and there is no reason or basis for relating such
payment to any lesser number of hours.
(ii) The Company must be concerned about the possible
repercussive effects in the event of any future
reduction in working hours for other workers who form
the vast majority of employees in the Company.
(iii) The Company cannot afford to worsen its already serious
financial position arising from yearly losses and
intensive competition from low priced imports.
(iv) The Company is concerned at the possible repercussive
effects if a shorter working week was introduced for
the rest of the workers who form the majority of the
workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the Union's undertaking to provide full shift
cover on a 40 hour basis the Court recommends that the Company
concede the Union's claim to pay the attendance bonus in respect
of 38.50 hours.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th February, 1987.
M.D./J.C.