Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89729 Case Number: LCR12688 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PENN ATHLETIC PRODUCTS COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction and implementation of a thirty nine hour week under the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Union accept that the existing production
quotas should be retained, given the spare capacity outlined by
the Company, and that local negotiations commence on the manner in
which a reduced working week will be implemented either by way of
reduced weekly working hours or in an allocation of additional
floating days or in an appropriate combination thereof.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89729 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12688
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PENN ATHLETIC PRODUCTS COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction and implementation of a
thirty nine hour week under the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures tennis balls and employs
approximately one hundred and fifty people in Mullingar. In
March, 1989 the Union lodged a claim for the introduction of a
thirty nine hour week under the P.N.R. The P.N.R. provides for
discussions at local level regarding a reduction in working hours
where the normal working week is at or above forty hours. The
reduction would be for one hour per week and would be implemented
before expiry of the three year period of the P.N.R. The
Company's response to the Union's claim is that it is willing to
negotiate the implementation of a thirty nine hour week provided
the existing production quotas are maintained. The Union claims
that the thirty nine hour week should be conceded with a
consequential reduction in production quotas. No agreement was
reached and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 28th July, 1989. A conciliation conference
was held on 27th September, 1989 at which the Company formally
proposed that "subject to the maintenance of existing weekly
production quotas, the Company proposes to reduce the weekly
working time by one hour from 40 to 39, the reduction to take
effect at the end of each week." This offer was rejected in a
ballot of the Union membership. The Union favoured a system
whereby six and one half days accumulated over a year could be
taken on a floating basis rather than the Company's proposal that
there be a one hour reduction in the working day at the end of
each week. No agreement was reached and the matter was referred
on 18th October, 1989 to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The
hearing took place at Mullingar on the 5th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have already conceded productivity proposals
with the introduction of the P.N.R.. For the Company to look
for further increases in production now would not only be in
breach of the local agreement but also of clauses 6,7, and 8
of the P.N.R.
2. The Union has so far monitored over one hundred and forty
agreements covering the introduction of the thirty nine hour
week and only one agreement allowed for no loss in production.
It was the understanding of unions and employers that the
introduction of a thirty nine hour under the P.N.R. would have
cost implications for the employer.
3. The workers concerned are working to maximum efficiency.
It would not be possible for all areas to maintain the same
production quotas for a thirty nine hour week as a forty hour
week. The Union therefore claims concession of the thirty
nine hour week from 1st April, 1989 with a reduction in the
production quotas.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has indicated its willingness from the outset
of negotiations to implement a thirty nine hour week provided
that it does not affect existing weekly production quotas.
2. The Company is in a tight competitive position and must
maintain production levels in order to remain competitive.
3. The Company offered to implement the thirty nine hour week
by finishing one hour earlier on a Friday provided existing
production quotas are maintained. The Union has rejected this
offer and has sought the implementation of the thirty nine
hour week in the form of additional annual leave without
pre-conditions. The Company's offer gives full effect to the
provisions of the P.N.R. without placing any undue requirement
on the workers concerned while at the same time ensuring that
the adverse effect on the Company's costs is minimised.
4. In practice the workers concerned are not required to work
to maximum capacity in order to achieve the present production
quotas. It would be possible for the workers concerned to
maintain the present production quotas in the context of a
thirty nine hour week.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Union accept that the existing production
quotas should be retained, given the spare capacity outlined by
the Company, and that local negotiations commence on the manner in
which a reduced working week will be implemented either by way of
reduced weekly working hours or in an allocation of additional
floating days or in an appropriate combination thereof.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
20th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.