Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89645 Case Number: LCR12657 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is of the view that the Company's proposals as outlined on Page 1
of the Unions submission be amended to read as follow.
(a) To finish one hour early on Friday.
(b) To abolish afternoon tea break on Friday.
(c) To abolish shift overlaps.
(d) Security staff to be paid at time and a half discounted by
the abolition of the afternoon tea break on Friday.
The Court recommends that the above amended proposals be accepted
by the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89645 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12657
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the introduction of a 39 hour
week.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.), which has been agreed in the Company, the Union
submitted a claim for the reduction of the working week to 39
hours. In response the Company proposed the following:
- Day workers to finish on Fridays at 4.00 p.m. rather than
5.00 p.m.
- Shift workers to work 7 hour shifts on Fridays rather than
8 hours and finish at 2.00 p.m. rather than 3.00 p.m. and
9.00 rather than 10.00 p.m. respectively.
- 6 Security officer's to be paid an additional 1 hour
overtime at time and a half.
The costs of the above proposals to be off-set by the following:
- Elimination of 10 minutes afternoon tea breaks, Monday to
Friday.
- Elimination of shift overlap.
- Elimination of 50 minutes tea breaks for security
officers.
The Company's proposals were rejected by the Union who put forward
the following proposals:-
- 39 hour working week.
- Afternoon tea break to be moved to the end of the
afternoon.
- Lunch break reduced by 30 minutes.
- Working hours to be set at 8.00 a.m. to 4.15 p.m. (Monday
- Thursday) and 8.00 to 3.15 p.m. (Friday). Since tea
breaks would be added on this is a national finishing time
at 4.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.
- Regularisation of shift overlap.
- 1 week Spring shutdown to be converted to floating days.
- Examination of the possibility of moving the August
shutdown to an earlier time.
The Company was unwilling to accept Union's proposals without
provision for the abolition of the afternoon tea breaks. As
agreement could not be reached locally the issue was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 6th July, 1989.
No agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
27th August, 1989. Following the conciliation conference the
Company offered to include an extra 2 days holidays in addition to
the reduction in the working week, however, this was unacceptable
to the Union and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on
15th September, 1989, for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 8th November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejects the need for abolishing breaks as its
own proposal will provide the Company with massive savings and
discharge any obligations the Union has under the Framework
Agreement on Hours of Work.
2. Moving the break to the end of the shift will provide the
following savings:-
(a) Eliminates the slackness regarding the duration of the
break, thus saving the Company between 5 and 10
minutes per day.
(b) Eliminates the inefficiencies of stopping machines
during the break period. When the machines are
re-started various checks and adjustments must be made
resulting in waste production. This too would be
eliminated.
3. In the context of a restructured working week the Company
will also save on light, heat, water and energy overheads by
finishing earlier each evening. Production will be increased
by converting the Spring shutdown to floating days.
4. The Company is highly profitable and a strong performance
is expected again next year. Concession of the Union's claim
will not have any adverse effect on the Company's performance,
in fact, it will help improve it.
5. The proposal regarding security staff points to the
absurdity of the Company's position. In the name of getting a
1 hour reduction in the working week, these workers will get
40 minutes extra pay. This is unacceptable and should be
replaced by a proper arrangement of 1 hour's pay at time plus
a half or accumulated hours allowing additional leave.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is entitled, under the terms of the Framework
Agreement on hours, to seek agreement on ways to off-set the
costs of the 1 hour reduction. For the Union to refuse to
have regard to the costs, the implications for competitiveness
and flexibility and the effect on production and services is
in breach of both the P.N.R. and the Framework Agreement. The
Company's proposals are fully in accordance with Clause 7 of
the P.N.R. and Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement.
2. A 1 hour reduction in the working week will have the
following adverse effects:-
- 2.56% increase in hourly rate of pay.
- Overtime paid after 39 hours.
- Overtime paid at higher rate.
- Reduced productivity and competitiveness.
These effects were anticipated and provision for such effects
were written into the terms of the P.N.R.
3. In proposing to eliminate the afternoon tea break of 10
minutes, the Company is not seeking anything unusual as the
majority of companies in the manufacturing industry do not
have an afternoon tea break.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is of the view that the Company's proposals as outlined on Page 1
of the Unions submission be amended to read as follow.
(a) To finish one hour early on Friday.
(b) To abolish afternoon tea break on Friday.
(c) To abolish shift overlaps.
(d) Security staff to be paid at time and a half discounted by
the abolition of the afternoon tea break on Friday.
The Court recommends that the above amended proposals be accepted
by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________________
28th November, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.