Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90580 Case Number: LCR13117 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WOODFAB LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the claimants continue to work the hours as agreed
between the parties, and in operation since September, 1989.
The Court further recommends that the parties reconsider the
position in October, 1991 in the light of the then trading
position of the Company.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90580 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13117
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WOODFAB LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the sawmilling industry and the
major part of its produce is shipped for export over the weekend.
3. In September, 1989 the parties agreed revised working hours
which would take into account the introduction of a 39 hour week
as follows:
Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
Friday 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
This arrangement consisted of a 42 hour week with 3 hours paid at
overtime rates. Prior to this 4 hours compulsory overtime was
worked by means of an extra hour Monday to Thursday.
4. The Union is now seeking to have the 39 hour week implemented
by means of one hour earlier finishing on Fridays i.e. 3.30 p.m.
instead of the present 4.30 p.m. The Company is unwilling to
concede this as it argues that Friday is its busiest day as it is
the day that the Company's produce is prepared for shipping. As
local negotiations failed to resolve the issue the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 13th
March, 1990. Conciliation conferences were held on 2nd May and
6th September, 1990. As no agreement was reached the parties
subsequently agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Arklow on 6th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It was clearly intended unter the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) that workers would have a shorter working
week. Therefore management's proposal to maintain the current
working hours albeit on an overtime basis is contrary to the
general intent of the P.N.R.
2. The claim to have a one hour reduction on Friday afternoon
is fair and reasonable and is in keeping with the general
pattern both locally and nationally. However, if the Company
requires some overtime working on Fridays, then the normal
voluntary system should apply.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company is at present trading in very difficult
trading conditions. These conditions have been described as
the worst in 10 years. The Company's competitors are in a
position where they finish work at 6.00 p.m. on Fridays,
therefore, the Union's proposal to reduce by one hour the
amount of overtime worked on Friday afternoons would place the
Company at a severe disadvantage in its operations. The hours
as presently worked in the Company were introduced by the
Company at the behest of the employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the claimants continue to work the hours as agreed
between the parties, and in operation since September, 1989.
The Court further recommends that the parties reconsider the
position in October, 1991 in the light of the then trading
position of the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__11th__December,___1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman