Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD907 Case Number: LCR12759 Section / Act: S67 Parties: KROMBERG AND SCHUBERT LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a thirty nine hour week under the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) for a group of supervisors in the Company.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company in its final offer,
accepted by the majority of the workforce, has fully met the terms
of the Working Time Agreement under the Programme for National
Recovery, and in these circumstances does not recommend concession
of this claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD907 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12759
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: KROMBERG AND SCHUBERT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a thirty nine hour week
under the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) for a group of
supervisors in the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately one thousand workers in
Waterford and manufactures cable harness and related products for
supply to the automotive industry. In mid 1989 the Company
entered into discussions with the Union regarding the
implementation of a thirty nine hour week under the terms of the
P.N.R. The Company initially proposed that the thirty nine hour
week be implemented on an accumulated time basis in half-days in
return for a two and one half per cent increase in production
standards. This proposal was rejected by the Union. The Company
subsequently offered to reduce the 40 hour working week to 39
hours on a phased basis i.e. a half hour earlier Friday finishing
time from 5th January, 1990 and a further half hour earlier Friday
finishing time from 6th July, 1990. The majority of the work
force which is represented by the Union accepted this revised
offer. The supervisors (approximately 44) who are also
represented by the Union did not accept the revised offer. On
behalf of the supervisors the Union sought the implementation of
the thirty nine hour week on an accumulated time basis as
additional days off in line with the Company's initial proposal.
The Union also informed the Company that if it was to consider the
early finish time on Fridays then the one hour reduction would
have to be implemented in one phase from 1st January, 1990 and not
in two phases as proposed. The Company rejected the separate
proposals in relation to the supervisors. No agreement was
reached at local level and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 6th December, 1989. A
conciliation conference of the Labour Court was held on 14th
December, 1989 at which no agreement was reached and the matter
was referred on 3rd January, 1990 to a full hearing of the Labour
Court. The hearing took place in Waterford on 31st January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When making its initial proposal, the Company was willing
to convert the time accumulated into half days, to be taken
during their slack period. The Union contends that, equally,
it could now look at the accumulation of the reduction in
hours as days instead and the workers concerned feel that such
an arrangement could be arrived at.
2. The Company has a pool of "stand in" supervisors who can
provide trained cover for supervisors when days off are taken.
3. The supervisors are a small but important section of the
total workforce. They should be accommodated in this case
even if the granting of days off were to be taken during a
specific period of the year.
4. With regard to the one hour earlier finishing time on
Fridays, other local companies have implemented it six to
eight months earlier than this Company's proposed commencement
date of 1st January, 1990, with workers not receiving the full
benefit until July, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's position is that the method of
implementation for supervisors must be the same as for direct
production operatives, since these are the employees who are
supervised.
2. The P.N.R. allows for the implementation of the reduced
working time in such a way as to "minimise any adverse effect
on costs and employment". For the Company to do so the manner
of the agreement for supervisors must be the same as for
direct production operatives.
3. The Union's proposals involve extra costs and are in
conflict with good management practice (details supplied to
the Court).
4. Concession of the Union's proposals could lead to
repercussive claims.