Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9021 Case Number: LCR12735 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GILBEY'S OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a reduction in the working week on behalf of 36 production related clerical workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9021 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12735
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GILBEY'S OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a reduction in the working week on
behalf of 36 production related clerical workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned have a 39 hour working week, production
staff also work a 39 hour week. Other clerical staff in the
Company work a 37.50 hour week. The Union claims that the hours
worked by the employees concerned should be brought into line with
other clerical supervisory and administrative staff in the Company
i.e. 37.50 hours. The claim was first submitted to the Company in
1987 but was held over in 1988 because of takeover negotiations
with another company. Management has rejected the claim on the
grounds that a comprehensive agreement negotiated in 1987
stipulated that the differences in working hours within the one
salary system would not give rise to any consequential claims as
long as there were no major changes in general working conditions.
Local discussions failed to resolve the issue which was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 25th
January, 1988. Conciliation conferences were held on the 14 of
July, and the 23rd October, 1989 but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th January,
1990. A Court hearing was held on the 29th January, 1990.
UNION 'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are remunerated as per the grading
structure set out in the comprehensive agreement negotiated
between the parties (details supplied to the Court). Each
worker receives a pay slip which accounts for 37.50 hours only
and all overtime is calculated on the basis of a 37.50 hour
week. The Company consistently refuses to accept that a
number of workers are receiving less pay for hours worked
compared to colleagues covered by the same Agreement.
2. In the case of two clerical workers in the purchasing
department they are required to attend work from 8.30 a.m. to
5.00 p.m. when alongside them clerical workers in the
production and quality control areas are required to attend
from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. This demonstrates the inequity of
a situation which currently exists within the Company where
two sets of workers are on similar grades but differing in
remuneration.
3. The Company on numerous occasions has stated that the
claim is precluded under the terms of the P.N.R. The Union
must emphasise that it was first initiated in November, 1987
before the P.N.R. came into place. The claim was withheld
until 1989 at the request of the Company (due to negotiations
on a takeover bid by another company). The claim therefore
could not be covered by the P.N.R.
4. The letter of appointment of each worker concerned states
that each worker will be entitled to all benefits of the staff
salaried scheme as befits a designated grade. This should
include a 37.50 hour working week. The Company previously
indicated that they could concede the claim if they were
assured that no consequential claims from other sections were
forthcoming. The Union is not aware of any other claims and
suggests that this claim should be judged on its merits.
5. Various suggestions put forward by the Union such as time
off in lieu, annual leave be given, a system of flexi-time
operated, or that the extra 30 minutes worked per day be paid
for, were all rejected by Management. The Union believes that
the workers concerned should have the same hours of work as
all other workers within the grading structure and that this
should be applied retrospectively to November, 1987.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. In 1987 the parties concluded comprehensive agreements
(details supplied to the Court) on productivity and conditions
of employment. The workers received increases of the order of
8% in return for signing these agreements. A very specific
clause was agreed between the parties and included in the
Agreement to the effect that these differences in working time
would not give rise to any consequential claims. The workers
on whose behalf this claim is being taken are in breach of a
specific undertaking incorporated in the Agreement signed on
their behalf.
2. Any concession would clearly have major repercussive
effects throughout the total workforce. Other unions have
made it abundantly clear to Management that if any concessions
are made they would immediately seek to use these to the
benefit of their members. The Company has implemented fully
the terms of the P.N.R. including the one hour reduction in
the working week effective from 1st October, 1989. The
Company is entitled to the "no further cost increasing claims"
protection of the P.N.R.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
2nd February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.