Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90401 Case Number: LCR13007 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ABS PUMPS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 30 workers for the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions in this case, the Court
recommends that the 39 hour week be conceded for this group of
workers from 1st November, 1990. The intervening period should in
the view of the Court, provide sufficient time for discussions and
agreement of the outstanding matters.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90401 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13007
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 T0 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ABS PUMPS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 30 workers for
the introduction of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union on behalf of administrative, technical and
supervisory staff wrote to the Company on 29th January, 1990,
seeking the implementation of the one hour reduction in the
working week as provided for in the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.). The Union proposed the method of
implementation should be on the basis of 6.5 days extra leave per
annum. The Union also stated that a one hour reduction on Fridays
would be acceptable. The Company on 20th March, 1990, responded
with the following proposals:-
(a) Co-operation with on-going changes towards becoming more
competitive.
(b) Official break times to be adhered to (i.e. people go to
their lunch break at the official lunch time of 1 p.m.).
(c) Overtime to apply after 40 hours have been worked.
(d) Overtime/time-worked-in in lieu of time off only applies
after 9 hours have been worked, but, where more than 9
hours is worked, all hours after 8 hours to be counted as
overtime/time-worked-in.
(e) Effective 1st July, 1991.
The Union rejected the Company's proposals on the grounds that the
reduction in hours should be implemented at an earlier date and
that overtime should apply after 39 hours have been worked. As no
agreement could be reached locally the issue was referred on 4th
May, 1990, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
19th June, 1990, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court,
on 13th July, 1990, for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 15th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The P.N.R. which provides for the reduction in the working
week was agreed in October, 1987. The Framework Agreement on
Hours of Work was agreed in February, 1989. The Company
proposes an implementation date of July, 1991, which is nearly
4 years after the signing of the original 3 year P.N.R.
agreement. The Union believes that this is totally
unreasonable. The one hour reduction in the working week
should be implemented immediately.
2. The Union believes that overtime should apply after 39
hours have been worked. It is illogical and unreasonable to
propose that workers who achieve a 39 hour week should have
their overtime calculated only after they have worked 40
hours. Indeed the Company could ensure, by constantly seeking
an extra hour's work at no cost, that the workers, in effect,
never got the one hour reduction.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company employs approximately 320 workers. The Union
albeit different branches represents 3 different categories of
workers, namely shop floor, craft and staff. Each Union group
has submitted claims for the introduction of the 39 hour week.
The Company has no disagreement in principle about the
application of the 39 hour week however, it has attached
various conditions to implementation as appropriate to the
different sections. Implementation is contingent upon
agreement being reached with all groups concerned. Agreement
on outstanding matters must be reached with the shop floor and
craft groups before this can take place however.
2. In view of the above, the Company believe that a Labour
Court hearing is premature and hopefully in the long term
unnecessary. The Company requests the Court to defer any
recommendation until such a time as negotiation with all 3
groups have the opportunity to be concluded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions in this case, the Court
recommends that the 39 hour week be conceded for this group of
workers from 1st November, 1990. The intervening period should in
the view of the Court, provide sufficient time for discussions and
agreement of the outstanding matters.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________________
4th September, 1990. Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.