Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89354 Case Number: LCR12504 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED - and - GROUP OF UNIONS;F.W.U.I. /A.E.U./N.E.E.T.U./E.T.U. |
Claim for grace time.
Recommendation:
5. The Court cannot find any grounds for recommending concession
of the Union claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89354 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12504
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AIRMOTIVE IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
GROUP OF UNIONS
(F.W.U.I./A.E.U./N.E.E.T.U./E.T.U.)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for grace time.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provide jet engine overhaul facilities to domestic
and international airlines. Over recent years it has expanded its
operations, plant and level of employment, significantly. It now
employs six hundred workers. In summer 1988, the Company's car
park was moved an approximate fifty to one hundred yards from its
normal location because of a building expansion programme. The
Company agreed a three minute grace time during the construction
work period, whereby employees would not suffer a deduction in
wages for the first three minutes of lateness when commencing
work. The plant agreement provides that deductions in respect of
lateness is calculated to the next highest one tenth of an hour
i.e. one to six minutes late is deducted at six minutes, seven to
twelve minutes late is deducted at twelve minutes. On completion
of the building programme the Company reverted to its normal time
keeping practice. The Union then sought the re-introduction of
the grace time arrangement because of the change in location of
the car park. In January 1989, the dispute was the subject of a
Labour Court conciliation conference. No agreement was reached
and on 5th May 1989, the Union requested a Labour Court hearing.
The Company agreed on 16th May 1989, and the Court investigated
the dispute on 18th July 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the structural changes to the plant employees
must be on the premises up to three minutes earlier in order
to have sufficient time to walk to the nearest clocking-in
system. The Company have refused to move the clocks nearer to
the car park.
2. The numbers employed in the Company have steadily grown,
resulting in the existing car park being inadequate. The
greatest difficulty arises at the change of shift at 3.00 p.m.
when the maximum number of cars are on site.
3. Under the existing agreement employees are not required to
be at their specific workplace and ready to commence work
until five minutes after their official reporting time. The
claim is therefore, not a cost increasing one. No significant
changes will ensue from concession of the claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Concession of the temporary grace time allowance was on
the clear understanding that it was to cover incidental delays
caused by on-going building work. Management stated
specifically at that time that on completion of construction
work the allowance would be discontinued. The shop stewards
agreed with this position.
2. In response to a group of unions claim made some years ago
for grace time, it was agreed that deductions in respect of
lateness would be calculated to the next highest one tenth of
an hour. Prior to that agreement, employees were deducted one
quarter of an hour's pay for lates ranging between 1 to 15
minutes. These changes were accepted by the group of Unions
and Management.
3. A situation cannot be accepted, in which time-keeping
procedures are revised on each occasion that an expansion of
staff members or operations necessitates extended car parking
facilities. The existing arrangements agreed some years ago
are fair and should continue.
4. It is contrary to all the required elements of a modern
Company, operating in a competitive industry, that there
should be consideration of a claim which would diminish in any
way the essential emphasis on first class timekeeping and
attendance. The very fact that a claim has been pursued is of
concern to management.