Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89586 Case Number: LCR12652 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NACANCO IRELAND LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim for the introduction of a 39 hour working week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends the implementation of the 39-hour week
with effect from 1 November, 1989 on the basis of a blocking
arrangement. Under this arrangement the Company would engage
temporary workers to cover for the hours accumulated at the rate
of one hour per week worked in respect of each member of the
workforce as a result of the reduction in the working week.
The Court notes that as agreed between the parties at the hearing
overtime will be payable on hours worked over and above 40 per
week and will be based on a 39 hour week.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89586 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12652
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NACANCO IRELAND LTD
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the introduction of a 39 hour working week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufacture can ends. Ninety five workers are
concerned with the claim for the introduction of a 39 hour working
week. Ninety three of the workers work on a continuous four shift
cycle. Negotiations have taken place between the Company and
Union on the introduction of the 39 hour working week. Company
proposals that an additional 48 hours wages would be paid per
annum (later increased to 52 hours) were rejected by the Union.
The Union are seeking time off at the rate of one hour per week or
an accumulation of one hour per week, to be taken as additional
days off during the year (to overcome difficulties which the four
shift cycle poses). The dispute was the subject of a Labour Court
conciliation conference on 31st August, 1989, during which the
Company put forward proposals on blocked time as follows:-
A. It would apply from 1st January, 1990
B. The number of hours would be 48
C. The 'rest days' and existing holidays and
short-term absence would be covered by a panel of
temporary employees (at agreed union rates)
D. 2 days would be taken in January/February
2 days would be taken in October/November
E. A minimum of 1 day would have to be taken.
F. There would be no change in the hourly rate.
The proposals were unacceptable to the Union because of the hourly
rate of overtime and because of the date of the proposed
implementation. As no agreement was reached both parties agreed
to a full Court hearing. The Court investigated the dispute in
Waterford on 25th October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The basic agreement on hours provides for a straight
reduction from 40 hours to 39 hours per week. In such cases
overtime commences after 39 hours and is paid on the basis of
the new increased hourly rate. Such a straight reduction is
not practical in the Company's case as the operation of a four
shift system requires the operatives to work an average 42
hour week, two hours of which are paid at overtime rates. The
idea of reducing the basic week to 39 hours and gaining an
additional hour at overtime rate is not in keeping with the
intentions of the Framework Agreement and would not be
acceptable to the workers concerned.
2. In order to facilitate the operation of the four shift
system the Union is agreeable to the accumulation of the hour
per week on a straight hour for hour basis. The Union is also
prepared to accept that under this system overtime will
continue to be paid for hours worked in excess of 40 and not
39. Where overtime is worked the hourly rate must be the
weekly rate divided by 39 and not 40 as otherwise a basic
principle of the 39 hour week is not being applied.
3. The date of implementation of the reduction in hours
should be 23rd June, 1989, as against the 1st January, 1990
proposed by the Company. This date is most reasonable when
account is taken of the date on which the Union made its
formal claim, i.e. 2nd March, 1989, allowing adequate time for
negotiations.
4. The Union has had full regard to the criteria for
negotiations set out in the Framework Agreement on hours of
work. It has been flexible in its approach to the particular
difficulties involved in implementing the 39 hour working
week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The idea of blocking the hours and accumulating them as
rest days is not an attractive method of implementation for
the Company. To do so would be conditional on the rest days
being covered by workers recruited from outside. Such workers
would also cover short-term absenteeism and existing holidays.
The Company is not prepared to work a system whereby such rest
days will be covered by overtime.
2. The Company have recently put a considerable investment
into the Waterford plant. The parent Company want to see a
level of return justifying their investment decision. The
plant must prove itself as a top performer. All cost elements
must be controlled. The Company acknowledge its obligation
under the working time agreement but it also demands its right
to implement terms at minimum costs.
4. 3. Overtime cover is a major labour cost in the Company and
further increases must be avoided. 1 hour of overtime cover
costs the Company 1.97 hours pay. However, the Company would
be flexible on the calculation of overtime rates - hours
worked in excess of 40 being calculated on a 39 hour week.
4. The Company is prepared to pay the hour at time +.50 and
to negotiate on the bonus pay option from a level of 52 hours
upwards.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends the implementation of the 39-hour week
with effect from 1 November, 1989 on the basis of a blocking
arrangement. Under this arrangement the Company would engage
temporary workers to cover for the hours accumulated at the rate
of one hour per week worked in respect of each member of the
workforce as a result of the reduction in the working week.
The Court notes that as agreed between the parties at the hearing
overtime will be payable on hours worked over and above 40 per
week and will be based on a 39 hour week.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
22nd November, 1989 ---------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman