Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89534 Case Number: LCR12625 Section / Act: S67 Parties: M.B. IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 170 workers for the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It appears to the Court that despite the reduction in breaks
arising from Recommendation L.C.R. 11989 that the breaks still in
existence are longer than those in industry generally but that
this is in some measure due to levels of flexibility as regards
the manning of the production line.
In the circumstances the Court would not consider the Company's
proposal (a) involving the elimination of the afternoon break to
be within the spirit of the agreement on working hours. The Court
acknowledges the Company's difficulty with regard to net working
hours but considers that this should be dealt with as a separate
issue. Pending resolution of this issue it seems that the
proposal favoured by the Union providing for time off in the off
peak period is the better approach and the Court accordingly
recommends that this be accepted by the Company, and that the date
of implementation be 1st July, 1989 which in effect will give
those qualifying half the accumulated time off in February, 1990.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89534 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12625
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: M.B. IRELAND LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 170 workers for
the introduction of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 26th April, 1989, the Union wrote to the Company seeking
the introduction of a 39 hour week as provided for under the terms
of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). The Company
responded to the Union's claim on 11th May, 1989, saying that it
understood that it had been agreed to leave discussions on the
claim until 1990, when the next phase of the P.N.R. falls due for
payment. The Union denied the existence of any such agreement and
on 2nd June, 1989, the issue was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court.
3. At a conciliation conference held on 13th July, 1989, the
Company indicated it would be willing to discuss the issue but
that it was seeking discussions on items which might off-set the
cost e.g. breaks. The Union said it would not enter discussions
on any quid pro quo for the one hour reduction. Following the
conciliation conference, two further meetings took place between
the parties at which the Company put forward two proposals:
Proposal (A)
Starting and finishing times to remain unchanged with 6
Fridays off during January/February each year. The actual
dates to be fixed in advance by direct negotiation each year.
The basis for overtime calculations shall be after 39 weekly
hours worked at the new higher hourly rate. Employee
co-operation in reducing plant inefficiencies to remain
competitive. Existing flexibility to continue. The cost of
hours reduction shall be offset by maintaining actual current
production. Tightening up on non-productive time to minimise
costs. Temporary employees who have left the Company's employ
before the dates of the Fridays off, and have worked the hours
to qualify for the days in lieu will have the amount owing
paid to them in their final pay packet. Discontinuation of
the afternoon tea break, (15 minutes).
Proposal (B)
That the working day be re-arranged to start at 8.00 a.m. and
finish at 4.15 p.m. The morning breaks to remain as
currently, the lunch break to be 30 minutes and no break in
the afternoon. This gives a 38 3/4 hour week. Overtime to be
calculated on a 39 hour week.
(Separate proposals were put forward in respect of shift
workers with the day shift on Mondays commencing at 11.00 a.m.
instead of the existing 8.00 a.m. start. The existing break
times to be reduced by 10 minutes).
The proposals were rejected by the Union on the grounds that the
Company proposed interfering with the duration of existing break
times, which had already been reduced in 1988. On 31st July,
1989, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
matter on 19th September, 1989, in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The P.N.R. was accepted by the trade union movement by a
very small majority of members. In return for stability and
low wage increases the workers got little in return. Apart
from a marginal adjustment in tax rates, the only real benefit
was the one hour reduction in the working week. However,
having secured their part of the agreement, in terms of pay,
the Company now also want the workers to make further
concessions to cover the cost of the reduction in hours. In
view of the considerable benefits enjoyed by the Company under
the terms of the P.N.R. there is no question of not having the
capacity to absorb the small cost of the reduction in hours.
2. The Company, in terms of cost, has no grounds for
complaint as its pay rates are lower than the general pay
rates in the area. The Company also enjoys considerable
flexibility and cost effective production scheduling through
its ability to take on and lay-off its temporary employees at
short notice.
3. Workers in the Company have already suffered the loss of a
ten minute break following a L.C.R. 11989. The remaining
breaks are the absolute minimum which will be accepted by the
Union.
4. The Union has shown its willingness to implement the
reduction in hours in a way that would impact least on the
Company. Through accumulating the hours over the years and
taking these hours as days off in the slack period
(January/February), the Company will suffer no disruption of
its production schedules during peak periods. Temporary
employees will have no reduction in hours worked as the
accumulated hour per week can be implemented as an extra
payment in their final pay packet.
5. Nationally a large number of agreements providing for the
reduction to a 39 hour week have been concluded. Very few of
these have required concessions by the workers. Fifteen
agreements have been concluded locally and none have required
concessions on the part of the workers. It is important that
the Company is not seen to gain an advantage over more
forthcoming employers through the creation of difficulties and
delays.
6. Taking account of the operative date of the P.N.R. in the
Company (1st January, 1988) and operative dates of agreements
within other companies, the Union considers that the 1st May,
1989, would be an appropriate date for the implementation of
the reduction in hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Any reduction in the working week effects the use which is
made of plant, equipment and operating efficiency. The
competitive position of the plant must not be jeopardised in
the actual reduction of attendance hours. The cost of the
hours reduction must be offset by maintaining actual current
production hours. The number and extent of breaks means
production hours are 36.92 at present. There is a distinction
between paid hours and actual hours worked in the plant.
Production time must be structured to facilitate output levels
to meet seasonal demands. There must be a commitment not to
increase unit costs. The Company cannot increase costs in the
middle of its financial year as the prices for its products
are fixed for 1989.
2. The framework for discussions on working time in the
P.N.R. allows companies to introduce changes which will
facilitate the reduction in hours to 39 on the basis of
minimising the costs involved in day and shift working. The
criteria outlined in the P.N.R. are explicit about the need to
have full regard to costs, competitiveness and a range of
other features and provides for the one hour reduction to be
implemented before the expiry of the current agreement. The
Company is currently in the second phase of the agreement,
which expires on 5th January, 1990, on which date the final
phase will apply.
3. The Company's response to the claim seeks to achieve a
balance between hours available and production hours required,
taking into account market realities. It provides the
essential framework around which work times can be arranged,
and the form that business requires, which has to be matched
to production and transport schedules.
4. The issue of the 39 hour week effects more than the Union
members. Management has to carry the burden of responsibility
for marketing and delivery of its products, it must also have
the right to organise its work load.
5. The Company is of the view that proposal (B) is more
practical than proposal (A) which would involve working from
1.15 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. without a break. The advantages to
workers of proposal (B) are that overtime earnings are
available from 4.15 p.m. instead of 5.00 p.m., as currently
exists, thus providing an additional 1 1/8 hours pay for the
current 7.00 p.m. overtime. There is an earlier finish to the
basic working day in line with finishing times in the area.
There will be enhanced earnings for the workers during peak
production periods.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It appears to the Court that despite the reduction in breaks
arising from Recommendation L.C.R. 11989 that the breaks still in
existence are longer than those in industry generally but that
this is in some measure due to levels of flexibility as regards
the manning of the production line.
In the circumstances the Court would not consider the Company's
proposal (a) involving the elimination of the afternoon break to
be within the spirit of the agreement on working hours. The Court
acknowledges the Company's difficulty with regard to net working
hours but considers that this should be dealt with as a separate
issue. Pending resolution of this issue it seems that the
proposal favoured by the Union providing for time off in the off
peak period is the better approach and the Court accordingly
recommends that this be accepted by the Company, and that the date
of implementation be 1st July, 1989 which in effect will give
those qualifying half the accumulated time off in February, 1990.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
13th November, 1989.
B.O'N/J.C. Deputy Chairman