Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89234 Case Number: LCR12380 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CHADWICKS LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union that a proposed change in working hours should not take place.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted the changes required by the Company to meet changing
market circumstances. The changes proposed by the Company
involve the cessation of the existing staggered lunch breaks.
They also involve the introduction of an 8 a.m. start for a number
of employees instead of an 8.30 a.m. start with a 5 p.m. instead
of a 5.30 p.m. finish for the staff concerned. The Company
further requires a guarantee that staff will be available to cover
for Saturday mornings at overtime rates.
In view of the circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that those required to work an 8 a.m. start instead of the normal
8.30 a.m. start should be paid for this .50 hour at overtime rates
while maintaining their normal finishing time of 5.30 p.m. The
Court also recommends a lump sum payment of #850 in compensation
for the other changes required by the Company.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89234 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12380
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CHADWICKS LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a proposed change in working hours
should not take place.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns twelve indoor staff who are employed by
the Company at its Coolock Branch. Up to 1982 the Company
operated the standard 5 day working week. Working hours were 8.30
a.m. to 5.30 p.m. each day, with the Branch being closed between
1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. for lunch. In October, 1982 the Company
and Union agreed a change in the working hours which provided the
Company with the option of introducing a flexible lunch break and
working hours arrangement. During the Summer period staff
received their lunch break in two groups between 12.30 p.m. and
2.30 p.m. with the Branch remaining open throughout the lunch
period. The workers received an additional half hours pay per day
for operating the staggered lunch arrangement. During the Winter
period staff continued to work staggered lunch breaks, and in
reward for this were required to work .50 hour less per day. The
Company has found that the arrangements negotiated in 1982 are not
working to its satisfaction. It now proposes to operate the
following arrangements:
(1) A fixed one hour lunch period from 1 to 2 p.m., during
which the sales and office sections of the Branch would
be closed.
(2) An 8.00 a.m. opening time, with staff having staggered
starting times to cover for this. The current starting
time is 8.30 a.m.
(3) A guarantee that staff would be available to cover for
Saturday mornings. Normal Saturday overtime premia would
apply.
In compensation for the above, the Company has offered
compensation of #500 gross to each of the individuals concerned.
Of this, #100 is in compensation for the Saturday work and early
morning start, and #400 is in compensation for the loss of the
allowances which are associated with the staggered lunch break.
The Union found the Company's offer unacceptable. It wants the
existing agreement on hours and pay to stand. In any event, the
Union contends that the Company's offer of compensation
is totally inadequate. Agreement could not be reached on the
issue at local level, and on 23rd February, 1989 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
Conciliation conferences took place on 28th February, 1989 and
30th March, 1989. Agreement was not reached, and on 30th March,
1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 14th
April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is clear that the Company has made no serious attempt
to address the problem in this dispute. There is a freely
negotiated arrangement on working hours in existence, with
agreed levels of remuneration. The Company is now seeking to
change this agreement and is offering totally inadequate
compensation for so doing.
2. The Company has said that it wishes to discontinue the
lunch time working hours arrangement. The reason it advances
for this is that "the skeleton staff that operates between
12.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. is not adequate to deal with the
customers. This is a period of high risk for security, with
resultant high loss of goods." If this is the case, the Union
is prepared to agree that the store will close at lunch time,
and the rest of the Agreement on trading hours can remain in
place. In this way both sides could be satisfied. The
workers would not suffer any loss of earnings, and there would
be no need for compensation, as the customers would be
adequately catered for and the security problem would be
resolved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The whole purpose of the introduction of the flexible
working system in 1982, which was initiated by the Company,
was with a view to improving business. It was solely on the
expectation of improvements in trade that the system was
introduced and the very high premiums were agreed. At no time
was it envisaged that this would result in a nett cost to the
Company or that customer service would suffer. A review of
the system in 1986 established that it was a nett cost and
customer demand could not be efficiently covered during the
period. In addition, high stock losses can also be attributed
to this period when the branch is short staffed.
2. It has been clearly established that the changes
introduced by the Company will have many positive effects for
the Branch by:-
(a) having a full complement of staff to cover for the
busier periods
(b) providing the customer with an efficient service
(c) improved staff cover to reduce stock losses and
(d) potential increase in revenue as a consequence of
the above.
The Company's view of the matter has proven true in the case
of the Glasnevin Branch. It is also envisaged that a similar
position will exist in Sallynoggin and Sandyford when the
changes are introduced there.
3. The ongoing benefits which the staff received from 1982 to
date are due to the inconvenience of the system of work. This
no longer is the case, therefore there is no justification
that any payment should be ongoing. However, in recognition
and acknowledgement of the fact that staff have grown
accustomed to this benefit, the Company have offered a once
off lump sum payment of #400. It must be recognised that the
inconvenience of working at half strength during a busy period
will no longer pertain. Similarly, because of the requirement
for cover for early morning start at 8.00 a.m. and the
Saturday mornings the Company have offered a lump sum payment
(#100). Staff who start at 8.00 a.m. will finish at 5.00 p.m.
as against 5.30 p.m. and will receive overtime for work done
after 5.00 p.m.. The staff who cover on Saturday mornings
will have the benefit of all of this time qualifying for the
overtime premium.
4. Clear precedents have already been established within the
Company for the elimination of the staggered lunch breaks and
the early morning and Saturday cover. Levels of compensation
for the effects of these changes have already been agreed.
Further branches are going to be effected in a similar way.
It is the Company's contention that a fair and reasonable
settlement is one which is consistent with that achieved in
the past and which does not create any difficult precedents
for future negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and has noted the changes required by the Company to meet changing
market circumstances. The changes proposed by the Company
involve the cessation of the existing staggered lunch breaks.
They also involve the introduction of an 8 a.m. start for a number
of employees instead of an 8.30 a.m. start with a 5 p.m. instead
of a 5.30 p.m. finish for the staff concerned. The Company
further requires a guarantee that staff will be available to cover
for Saturday mornings at overtime rates.
In view of the circumstances of this case the Court recommends
that those required to work an 8 a.m. start instead of the normal
8.30 a.m. start should be paid for this .50 hour at overtime rates
while maintaining their normal finishing time of 5.30 p.m. The
Court also recommends a lump sum payment of #850 in compensation
for the other changes required by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
10th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.