Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89910 Case Number: LCR12760 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ORAL B. LABORATORIES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning overtime rates and one days leave in respect of 1989 in the context of the implementation of a thirty nine hour week under the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends that the Company concede the Union's claim for payment
of overtime on the basis set out in the Union's submission with
effect from the 1/1/1990. The Court does not recommend concession
of the claim for one days extra leave in 1989.
The Court notes that with the agreement of the parties
representatives of the National Electrical and Engineering Trade
Union attended the hearing and made an oral submission.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89910 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12760
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ORAL B. LABORATORIES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning overtime rates and one days leave in
respect of 1989 in the context of the implementation of a thirty
nine hour week under the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Newbridge, Co. Kildare and
manufactures dental care products. Negotiations on the
implementation of the thirty nine hour week under the P.N.R.
commenced between the Union and the Company in early 1989. After
extensive negotiations it was agreed that the thirty nine hour
week would be implemented in the form of additional annual leave
in lieu of a reduction of one hour in the working week. The Union
claims that overtime after forty hours worked should be paid at a
new hourly rate (the present basic forty hour week rate divided by
thirty nine). During discussions with the Company in 1989 the
Union also sought one days additional annual leave in relation to
the implementation of a thirty nine hour week. The Company
rejected both claims. No agreement was reached at local level and
the matter was referred on 6th October, 1989 to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 8th December, 1989 at which no agreement was reached. The
matter was referred on 13th December, 1989 to a full hearing of
the Labour Court which took place in Newbridge on 30th January,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the new hourly rate for forty
hours should remain as at present but after forty hours the
new rate should be calculated by dividing the present basic
rate by thirty nine.
3. 2. In other companies where the thirty nine hour week was
introduced in the form of additional annual leave, the new
hourly rate has been paid for overtime purposes.
3. The economics of the Company's position do not add up. If
the Company had conceded the thirty nine hour week in terms of
one hour off per week then it would have to pay the new hourly
rate after thirty nine hours. Just because the Company has
implemented the thirty nine hour week in terms of additional
annual leave it should not cost the Company less.
4. In relation to the claim for one days additional leave in
1989, the Union sought this during negotiations in 1989 on the
implementation of a thirty nine hour week in return for a
recommendation by the Union for acceptance of the Company's
proposals.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is legitimate for the Company to request its employees
to continue to work a standard forty hour week and accumulate
the proposed one hour per week reduction in additional annual
leave. However there is no automatic entitlement for the
workers to additional overtime pay.
2. The Company is involved in the on-going development of new
products. It is not feasible to bring in new staff to
experiment on new products and ways of production. Overtime
is used for this purpose. If overtime costs are increased
this on-going development work may be uneconomic.
3. The framework agreement associated with the P.N.R. states
that "Employers and unions, in making agreements for the
reduction in working time shall have regard to:-
- the costs involved,
- the implications for competitiveness etc".
The Company in implementing the reduction in working time must
ensure that it maintains its competitive position. Employees
already work reasonable overtime on an ongoing basis. Any
further addition to this would have a negative effect on the
Company's cost structure.
4. The Company has adhered both to the letter and to the
spirit of the Programme for National Recovery. The pay terms
have been implemented and employment has risen in the order of
69 people.
5. The Company believes it has acted in the best interests of
its employees by granting time off in lieu, as this was the
option favoured by the majority. However the Company is
loathe to carry a double cost i.e. time off plus additional
payment for overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends that the Company concede the Union's claim for payment
of overtime on the basis set out in the Union's submission with
effect from the 1/1/1990. The Court does not recommend concession
of the claim for one days extra leave in 1989.
The Court notes that with the agreement of the parties
representatives of the National Electrical and Engineering Trade
Union attended the hearing and made an oral submission.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__19th__February,__1990. ____________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman