Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88515 Case Number: LCR12011 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RADIONICS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a core-time worker for full-time working.
Recommendation:
6. The Court noting the Company's assurance that they will give
full-time work to the employee concerned as soon as a suitable
position becomes available does not in these circumstances
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88515 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12011
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RADIONICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a core-time worker for
full-time working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the Electrical Component
Distribution business and employ about thirty-five workers. There
are two categories of employees, thirty three full-time staff who
work a 39.5 hour week as standard and two core-time workers who
work a standard 25 hours per week. The worker here concerned is
now the only core-time warehouse worker presently employed.
3. The Company introduced core-time working in 1985, after
consultation with the unions. This method of working was intended
to ensure that adequate staff were available to service the busy
core period of business from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. During the
course of discussions in late 1987, the Union made representations
on behalf of the core-time workers, arguing that a case existed
for them to be made full-time, since they were both required to
work substantially more hours than agreed. In one case, the
worker had worked 29 consecutive weeks full-time. At a meeting in
January, 1988, the Company agreed to review the position in
February, 1988. The Company subsequently formalised the position
of one core-time worker to a full-time basis, but rejected the
Union's claim that the other worker should also be made full-time.
The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 24th April, 1988. As no agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 13th June, 1988, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court, on 5th July, 1988, for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 11th August,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Given the worker's actual hours worked on a weekly basis
over the past 47 weeks, and the wide scale use of temporary
staff in the clerical section, there is no justification for
the Company's refusal to appoint the worker to a full-time
position.
2. Since August, 1987 the worker has been required to work in
excess of the "core-time" hours on a regular basis. Of the 47
weeks in question, he was required to work, more than 25 hours
per week on forty occasions, on 34 occasions he worked 30
hours plus per week, and on 20 occasions he worked the normal
full-time requirement.
3. A high degree of flexibility operates within the Radionics
staff especially since a rationalisation/redundancy agreement
in August, 1987 (copy supplied to the Court). While in theory
clerical staff do clerical work and stores/counter despatch
concentrate on their duties, there is a degree of overlap
effecting the trade counter. The employment of temporary
staff in certain situations can free up permanent clerical
staff who can be utilised in other areas. This has had a
knock-on effect on stores/counter staff in which section the
worker concerned is employed. This has led to limits being
placed on his utilisation.
4. The Company argues that the worker is employed in
accordance with the terms of his contract of employment and
that whilst accepting that from time to time he has been
required to work in excess of 25 hours, this was a temporary
requirement which will no longer be necessary. This argument
ignores another factor which underpins the Union's claim i.e.
the persistent need for Company to utilise the services of
temporary staff from an employment agency in the clerical
section.
5. The Union, and specifically the worker, deserves better,
given the high degree of co-operation with the
rationalisation, with no impediments being placed on the
utilisation of temporaries. While the Court may hold the view
that this is an issue of management perogative, the Union
requests the Court to take account of the worker's right to
fair treatment and managements specific responsibility in the
matter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was at all times employed in accordance with
his contract of employment. Any hours worked outside his
contracted 25 hours were entirely at the discretion of
management.
2. This extra work was in response to the level of trading
activity at that time. It was at all times made clear to the
worker and his Union that such additional hours worked were of
a temporary nature.
3. The worker's return to his normal hours of working
reflects the Company's current needs.
4. The Company previously indicated its willingness to review
the worker's status when a permanent need for his services
arises outside of his present contracted hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court noting the Company's assurance that they will give
full-time work to the employee concerned as soon as a suitable
position becomes available does not in these circumstances
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
5th September, 1988. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.