Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86651 Case Number: LCR11008 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CHADWICKS LTD - and - ITGWU;ITGWU;ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 30 workers in Athlone, Castlebar and Mallow regarding the Company's withdrawal from a 1982 agreement on flexible lunch and working hours.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
accepts that because of its difficult trading position, the
Company needs to abolish the flexible lunch-break which operates
at present in the three branches concerned in this claim.
The Court is of the view however that the issue should have been
negotiated and processed to finality much more quickly. Both
parties have a responsibility for the delay but the greater onus
lay with the Company as they were seeking the change they see as
necessary and the alteration of the agreement.
The Court therefore recommends:
- that the workers who operated the flexible lunch-break
in the 1986 Summer period and worked a 40 hour week be
paid under the terms of the agreement,
- that the flexible lunch-break be discontinued with
immediate effect and the branches in question revert to
a normally paid 40 hour week,
- that the Company offer and the Union accept a lump-sum
payment of #200 per worker involved for the abolition
of the flexible lunch-break.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
5th March, 1987 -------------------
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86651 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11008
CC86632 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11008
Parties: CHADWICKS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKER'S UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 30 workers in Athlone,
Castlebar and Mallow regarding the Company's withdrawal from a
1982 agreement on flexible lunch and working hours.
Background:
2. The Company has fourteen branches nationwide, four of which
are situated in Dublin. Up to October, 1982 the Company operated
a standard working week of 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. with a
lunchbreak of 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. Monday to Friday. The
workers were paid for and worked a 40 hour week. In October, 1982
a Company/Union agreement was made (to remain in force for 21
months and thereafter 3 months notice of intention to withdraw to
be given by either side) which included and provided for the
following flexible working arrangements: Winter (October - April),
branch open 8.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. with rostered lunchbreaks of
12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. the workers to
be paid for 40 hours and to work 37.50 hours per week; Summer (April
- October) branch open 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. with rostered
lunchbreaks, the workers to be paid for 42.50 hours and to work 40
hours per week. This system was introduced into the Athlone,
Castlebar and Mallow branches in 1982. In Mallow it was in
operation for a short period only in 1982 and was re-introduced in
1985. There was some variation between the branches in the method
of operation of the flexible working hours and rostered lunchbreak
system.
3. In April, 1986, the Company withdrew from the arrangements as
they considered them to be ineffective. The Union claimed that
the Company was breaching the 1982 agreement and the workers
continued to work the usual hours (but were not paid accordingly).
As agreement could not be reached at local level the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 7th
April, 1986. A conciliation conference took place on 10th July,
1986 (the earliest date suitable to both parties) at which no
agreement could be reached and on 2nd August, 1986 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 29th January, 1987 - the
earliest date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The workers have always operated in accordance with the
terms of the agreement which is part of the workers'
conditions of employment. Since April, 1986 the
Company has not complied with the terms of the
agreement and the workers have not been paid in
accordance with the agreement for Summer working
arrangements.
(ii) One of the reasons that the Company has incurred losses
was the closure of a Dublin branch in 1986 and the
resulting payment of redundancy money.
(iii) The Company has always been aware that the Union is
available to discuss changes in the agreement but its
terms should be adhered to during such a process. The
Company has not used the proper procedures to introduce
any changes.
(iv) Prior to the re-introduction of the system into the
Mallow branch in 1985 the Company in a letter to the
Union stated that if the Union wished the arrangements
to be introduced then the Company was bound by the
agreement to do so.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company has been experiencing severe trading
difficulties in recent years. The branches involved in
this claim are loss making branches and in the current
circumstances the performance of each branch will
determine its future.
(b) The flexible working system was originally introduced
in order to improve business - it was not expected to
become a cost burden to the Company. A review of the
operation carried out in 1985/86 established that the
arrangements were not effective and there were no
business advantages in it. Reversion to the old
working arrangements are necessary both because of
costs and inefficiencies in the system.
(c) The workers in the branches concerned have benefited
from the operation of the agreement by receiving
payments above the earnings of workers in other
branches where the system was not in operation. In
relative terms there has therefore been no loss to the
workers concerned.
(d) There is a precedent for the discontinuation of the
system due to the situation in the Mallow branch. In
this branch the scheme was introduced in 1982 but
shortly after discontinued at the Company's request.
No claims were made on the Company in 1982 and it was
later re-introduced into the branch in 1985.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
accepts that because of its difficult trading position, the
Company needs to abolish the flexible lunch-break which operates
at present in the three branches concerned in this claim.
The Court is of the view however that the issue should have been
negotiated and processed to finality much more quickly. Both
parties have a responsibility for the delay but the greater onus
lay with the Company as they were seeking the change they see as
necessary and the alteration of the agreement.
The Court therefore recommends:
- that the workers who operated the flexible lunch-break
in the 1986 Summer period and worked a 40 hour week be
paid under the terms of the agreement,
- that the flexible lunch-break be discontinued with
immediate effect and the branches in question revert to
a normally paid 40 hour week,
- that the Company offer and the Union accept a lump-sum
payment of #200 per worker involved for the abolition
of the flexible lunch-break.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
5th March, 1987 -------------------
U.M./U.S. Deputy Chairman