Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8971 Case Number: LCR12315 Section / Act: S67 Parties: P. J. CARROLL AND COMPANY - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union that an early finishing time agreement should remain in operation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is of the view that the Company's proposal to allow a finish time
of 4.45 p.m. with a reduction of the lunch hour break to 30
minutes is reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept this
proposal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8971 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12315
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: P. J. CARROLL AND COMPANY
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that an early finishing time agreement
should remain in operation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Approximately one year ago the main dispatch function in the
Company was moved from Dublin to Dundalk in a major
rationalisation scheme in the Company. The Company initially
proposed moving the entire operation to Dundalk, but due to a lack
of volunteers for redundancy or transfers, and following strong
representations from the Unions, the Company agreed not to move
the Dublin distribution. Prior to the rationalisation and the
cut-back in staffing levels throughout the Company an agreement on
working arrangements was entered into for the workers concerned.
Overtime was eliminated, agreed targets were set and "work to
finish" was introduced. This 1984 agreement resulted in a 4.00
o'clock finish two or three days per week. The Company's position
post rationalisation is that this agreement has been superseded by
that of the new working arrangements. It sees finishing time as
5.15. There has been more flexibility between departments within
the Company resulting in other workers being involved in the
distribution area, and the possibility of dispatch staff working
elsewhere rather than going on early finish. The Company would
see the latter as a need for further cut-backs in staff when the
final post redundancy situation is being considered. The Unions
dispute this. They consider that the old arrangements should
apply. The Company stated that it would be prepared to consider
an earlier finish by half an hour (4.45 p.m.), if employees would
reduce their main meal break from one hour to a half hour. This
was unacceptable to the Unions. On 28th November, 1988 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 13th January, 1989. No
agreement was reached and on 3rd February, 1989 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 2nd March, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unreasonable for the Company to claim that the 1988
agreement supercedes the 1984 one while at the same time
retaining all the parts of the earlier agreement that suits
the Company, e.g.
(1) An agreed level of measured throughput albeit in
line with the new staffing levels.
(2) Full flexibility.
(3) No overtime.
(4) Work studied standards.
The only real change in the arrangement is that less people
are packing a reduced number of orders, plus the one benefit
that the workers received in the 1984 agreement, an early
finish for completing an agreed level of orders within the
allotted time.
2. Arguments by the Company that the early finish in the
dispatch caused problems in other areas does not stand up when
the same early finish arrangement still applies in the
transport area following a similar type agreement dating back
to 1984. The 1984 agreement was entered into in good faith by
both Unions and Management, and the Unions do not accept that
the Company have the right to change or opt out of the one
arrangement within that agreement that was of benefit to the
workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has recently completed a major rationalisation
and reorganisation programme in order to maintain its cost
competitiveness in the light of a falling demand for its
products. Redundancies from all sections of the work force
were a feature of the plan. Part of the Company's original
programme called for the total transfer of all assembly and
packing operations, related to customer orders, from Dublin to
Dundalk. In the course of the discussions on the
rationalisation programme, which commenced in early 1988, the
Trade Unions asked that the Company mitigate the traumatic
effect such a transfer would have on Dublin employees. The
Company responded to this request and modified the original
plan to one which would leave the assembly and packing of all
Dublin orders remaining in Dublin.
2. In return for the modification of the programme, the early
finish agreement was to be terminated and there would remain
in Dublin a reduced flexible work force who would perform all
hourly paid duties necessary to service customers, maintain
the building and provide a range of general services. The
Company secured a number of redundancies from the Dublin based
hourly paid employees, and although insufficient to meet
requirements having regard to the modified programme for the
Dublin operations, (there remained a surplus of two or three
people) the new operation went into place on 1st October,
1988.
4. 3. Shop stewards met with local management towards the end of
October, 1988 and requested that the early finishing facility
be re-introduced. Management did not accede to the request on
the grounds that it would be totally unacceptable in the post
rationalisation environment to have a section of the work
force finishing early. A subsequent meeting with trade union
branch officials and management took place. The officials
acknowledged that at the time of the rationalisation
discussions the cessation of the early finish facility was a
small price to pay for the retention of ten or eleven jobs.
Now, however, they were obliged to pursue the request on
behalf of the remaining work force for the re-introduction of
the facility to finish early. The Company reluctantly stated
that it would be willing to consider an earlier finish by a
half hour, (normal finishing time is 5.15 p.m.) if employees
would reduce their main meal break from one hour to a half
hour.
4. The Company do not see that it is appropriate in the
current environment (post rationalisation, continuing market
decline) to return to an early finish facility and furthermore
it would have repercussions on other employees. In the light
of the foregone arguments the Company requests the Court to
uphold its position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
is of the view that the Company's proposal to allow a finish time
of 4.45 p.m. with a reduction of the lunch hour break to 30
minutes is reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Union accept this
proposal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___15th___March,___1989. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman