Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86877 Case Number: LCR10924 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HARP LAGER (I) LTD - and - ATGWU;AEU;UCATT;ETU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 130 craftsmen and general operatives for a shorter working week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the matter of a reduction in working
hours in this Company has been considered on three previous
occasions. Having considered the reasons put forward in the
Unions submission and in the Company's reply, the Court has not
found that any new grounds have been submitted which should lead
it to alter the rejections of the claim contained in
recommendations numbers 7210, 8854A/L and 9876 in the context of
the 26th round.
The Court however, cannot find grounds for the rejection of the
Unions request to have shorter working hours discussed in the
context of forthcoming productivity talks.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
19th January, 1987. Deputy Chairman.
T. McC./J.C.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86877 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10924
CC861372 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10924
Parties: HARP LAGER LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 130 craftsmen and general
operatives for a shorter working week.
Background:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Guinness Ireland
Limited. The current working week of the workers is 40 hours. In
June, 1986, the Unions served a claim on the Company for a
reduction in the working week to 35 hours without loss of pay, as
one of a number of claims under the 26th wage round. All other
aspects of the 26th wage round were resolved at a Labour Court
conciliation conference, held on 20th August, 1986, but as no
agreement could be reached on the claim relating to a shorter
working week the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 9th December, 1986, in Dundalk.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The claim for reduced hours is based on the policy of
all the individual Unions represented in the group,
together with those of the Irish Congress of Trade
Unions and the European Trade Union Confederation.
(ii) Countries within the E.E.C. operate a shorter working
week than that obtaining in Ireland. In this regard,
employers raise the question of comparative wage
increases with the rest of Europe when this is to their
advantage, but choose to ignore this logic when applied
to questions such as a shorter working week.
(iii) The increase in unemployment together with new
technology in the workplace, make it necessary to
protect existing employment and create new jobs where
possible. This process would be greatly helped by the
introduction of a shorter working week. Also, studies
show that in some European countries where a shorter
working week is in operation a number of jobs have been
saved (details supplied to the Court).
(iv) The total workforce in the Company enjoy the same
conditions of employment except with regard to the
working week where a 35 hour week applies to the
clerical/administrative employees. This constitutes
discrimination against the general operatives and craft
workers.
(v) Special pay increases negotiated on behalf of the
workers concerned in respect of productivity have been
passed on to the clerical workers. The Unions have no
objection to this in principle but feel that, in turn,
extra benefits applying to the clerical workers should
be extended to the workers involved in this claim.
(vi) While the Company has expressed the view in the past
that it was prepared to address the question of a
shorter working week within the context of a
cost-saving productivity agreement, it was not prepared
to put forward any proposals on the matter during
negotiations on the last productivity agreement. The
Guinness Group of Unions has agreed with that Company
that the question of weekly working hours will be
addressed during productivity discussions due to
commence shortly. The Unions are due to commence
discussions with the Company on a new productivity deal
in April, 1987, and the Unions feel that the shorter
working week question should be included in these
negotiations.
(vii) Companies throughout industry, both at local and
national level, have introduced a shorter working week
for their employees (details supplied to the Court).
(viii) The claim is a valid one and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company concluded a generous 26th pay round
settlement, which included substantial pay increases
and other concessions. This settlement requires no
further improvement through the concession of a shorter
working week.
(b) The Company is competing in the most aggressive and
competitive sector of the Irish beer market. The brand
has lost market share over the last number of years,
mainly to major continental brands brewed under licence
in Ireland. These breweries operate a 40 hour week.
Therefore, in order to be able to win back market share
and compete effectively in the home and export markets,
it is essential that the Company maintains and improves
cost effectiveness and efficiency and reverse the
decline in its profitability.
(c) The average duration of the working week in the Company
is 45 hours when overtime working is taken into
consideration. On this basis there is no social
argument for a reduction in the weekly working hours.
(d) The Labour Court has in three previous recommendations,
supported the Company's rejection of the introduction
of a shorter working week.
(e) The duration of the working week throughout industry
generally is 40 hours.
(f) The Labour Court has not recommended concession of any
claims for a reduction in the working week referred to
it during the 26th wage round.
(g) Given the excellent conditions of employment obtaining
in the Company; the special pay increases given in
return for flexibility over the past three years and
the fact that pay increases in the Company since 1979
have greatly exceeded the norm in industry generally,
this claim is not justified.
(h) In all the circumstances the claim must be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the matter of a reduction in working
hours in this Company has been considered on three previous
occasions. Having considered the reasons put forward in the
Unions submission and in the Company's reply, the Court has not
found that any new grounds have been submitted which should lead
it to alter the rejections of the claim contained in
recommendations numbers 7210, 8854A/L and 9876 in the context of
the 26th round.
The Court however, cannot find grounds for the rejection of the
Unions request to have shorter working hours discussed in the
context of forthcoming productivity talks.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
19th January, 1987. Deputy Chairman.
T. McC./J.C.