Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89727 Case Number: LCR12738 Section / Act: S67 Parties: VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
10. The Court having fully considered the submissions and the
views of the parties find that there has been insufficient
discussion of the issues by the Company and the union to allow of
a specific recommendation being made which in the view of the
Court would be likely to resolve the matter.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties in further
discussion seek to reach an acceptable agreement. These
discussions to be completed within a period of one month.
In the event of any issue remaining outstanding the Court will
make a recommendation on such issue.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89727 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12738
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1979
SECTION 67
PARTIES: VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1971 following a takeover by
Express Dairies Limited. The Company is engaged in the
manufacture of fat filled milk and a base for Baileys Irish Cream.
The Company employs 120 people at its plant in Virginia and
operates a continuous shift process.
3. In March, 1989 the Union lodged a claim for the introduction
of a 39 hour week and at a meeting held in May, 1989 the Union
requested concession of the hour by means of one hour off Friday
working hours or accrued time off work with pay to be implemented
from a current date.
4. At a further meeting held on the 19th July, 1989 the Company
put forward proposals for the introduction of a 39 hour week to
come into effect from 1st April, 1991 by years of accrued time off
to be decided by Management. In return the Company sought the
following being implemented prior to the introduction of a 39 hour
week:-
1. Tea breaks restricted strictly to 2 X 10 minutes (as per
existing agreement).
2. Employees must be changed and ready for work before clocking
in and similarly must still be in their work wear before
clocking out.
3. Any employees leaving the premises during lunch breaks will
be required to clock out and in (in accordance with point No.
2 above) and excessive breaks will be penalised.
4. No employee will be permitted to go to the Bank during
working hours. The Company will provide the facility of
payment by cheque to those who require it.
5. Individual departments will no longer have the right to cover
sickness and holidays from within the department.
6. The Company require the right to adjust shift patterns to
suit production requirements.
5. The Union rejected these proposals and the issue was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 28th July,
1989. A conciliation conference was held on 19th September, 1989.
At the conciliation conference the Company amended its proposals
which were rejected by the Union.
6. Subsequent to the conciliation conference the parties held a
further meeting on 29th November, 1989 at which the following
amended proposals were put to the Union:-
"1. DAY WORKERS
A. One hour off on Friday afternoons.
B. Wage rates consolidated i.e. present basic wage per 40
hours will be paid for 39 hours.
C. 40th hour will be paid at the new consolidated basic
rate.
D. Overtime will be paid after the 40th hour at the new
consolidated basic rate.
2. 3 SHIFT CONTINUOUS WORKING
A. Wage rates consolidated i.e. present basic wage per 40
hours will be paid for 39 hours.
B. Overtime will be paid after the 39th hour at the new
consolidated basic rate.
3. 2 SHIFT WORKING
A. OFF PEAK - As per day work with early shift starting
one hour later and late shift finishing one
hour earlier on day each week.
B. PEAK - As per 3 shift continuous working.
In return the Company requires that the following agreements
are reached and implemented satisfactorily prior to the
proposed implementation date of 1st April, 1990.
1. The present two tea breaks of 10 minutes each will be
combined to give one twenty minute tea break per day.
2. Employees must be changed and ready for work before
clocking in and similarly must still be in their work
wear before clocking out.
3. Any employees leaving the premises during lunch breaks
will be required to clock out and in (in accordance with
point No. 2 above) and excessive breaks will be
penalised.
4. No employees will be permitted to go to the Bank during
working hours. The Company will provide the facility of
payment by cheque to those who require it.
5. Individual departments will no longer have the right to
cover sickness and holidays from within the department.
6. The Company require the right to adjust shift patterns to
suit production requirements".
The Union rejected these proposals as they considered the date of
implementation should be 1st January, 1990; the workers must
retain two tea-breaks; accrued time off preferred to overtime
payments; established access to banks to remain and boilerhouse
operatives to hold right to provide cover for their own holidays.
7. As no agreement was reached both parties consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held in Cavan on 18th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Union considers that the workers are under no
obligation to concede established rights and benefits in order
to obtain the benefit of a 39 hour week. The reduction in
working hours is one of the few real advantages of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and should not have
to be bought from the Company.
2. The change in tea breaks is unjustified because all breaks
are staggered and the workers are so concerned with their
responsibilities that they often waive their break when Plant
difficulties arise. The Company is not satisfied with having
the pay path system on wages but now wants to restrict access
to the banks. In eliminating the boilerhouse operatives'
right to cover their own holidays, the Company is taking away
many times the value of the hour to the workers concerned.
8. 3. The Company's latest proposal on implementing the 39 hour
week by paying overtime for the 40th hour is unacceptable. It
is against the intent and spirit of the P.N.R. It is also not
much value to the workers concerned when tax and P.R.S.I.
deductions are taken into account.
4. The Company is highly profitable with relative low labour
costs against turnover. There is no reason why this Company
cannot be like its associate in Cork and concede the Union's
claim without any preconditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company is currently facing intense competition for
milk supplies and it is vitally important that it maintains
maximum efficiency and cost effectiveness in this regard.
2. The agreement at national level on the reduction in
working hours clearly and specifically provided for agreements
to minimise any adverse costs associated with the reduction in
hours as well as making arrangements for the efficient use of
human resources, plant, equipment and machinery. The
Company's proposals and all its subsequent amendments are
completely reasonable and will only go a small way towards
offsetting the costs of the reduced working week.
3. The date of implementation proposed by the Company under
its most recent package is April 1st, 1990. This proposal is
one year prior to the actual expiry of the P.N.R. applying
within the company and as such will represent additional
costs. As the Court will be aware the framework agreement
only obliges an employer to effect such a reduction prior to
the expiry of its pay agreement. This Company has proposed a
much earlier date strictly on the basis that the concession
sought in return are complied with in full. Anything less
than this gives the Company valid reason for revising its
implementation date.
4. Only 100 agreements have been reached on a national basis
at this stage, many of which apply from a forward date. This
is an extremely small number within the context of the
national scene and therefore the Company's proposal should be
seen as a major benefit to its workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court having fully considered the submissions and the
views of the parties find that there has been insufficient
discussion of the issues by the Company and the union to allow of
a specific recommendation being made which in the view of the
Court would be likely to resolve the matter.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties in further
discussion seek to reach an acceptable agreement. These
discussions to be completed within a period of one month.
In the event of any issue remaining outstanding the Court will
make a recommendation on such issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
5th February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./M.F.