LCR12936

Subject:
Claim by the Union concerning the method of implementing a 39 hour working week.

Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis on which it could justify recommending concession
of the Union's claim.

Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD90235 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12936


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67

PARTIES: LAPPLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)

AND

MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE

SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the method of implementing a 39
hour working week.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 350 workers. Arising from
discussions on phase 3 of the P.N.R. Company Management and the
three Unions representing the workforce agreed to the introduction
of a 39 hour working week, effective from 1st March, 1990.
However, one of the Unions (M.S.F.) disagreed with the method of
applying the reduction. Presently, staff work from 8.00 a.m. to
12.00 and from 1.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. The Company has agreed with
another Union to implement the reduction by way of a 4.00 p.m.
finish on Fridays. The Union (M.S.F.) claim that workers should
be entitled to finish work at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday if they opt to
take annual leave on Friday or if a public holiday falls on a
Friday. They also claim that a worker who takes 1/2 days leave on
Friday should only work 3.5 hours on that day. The Company
rejected the Union's claim and the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 28th March, 1990. It
was the subject of a conciliation conference on 24th April, 1990.
No agreement was reached and the Union requested a full Court
hearing (by letter) on 7th May, 1990. The Company agreed and the
Court investigated the dispute on 21st June, 1990.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company maintain that the reduced working week must be
implemented by an early finish on Friday evenings. This
practice militates against workers who opt for annual leave on
Friday p.m. as the Company is insisting that workers must work
until 12.00 noon on that day. Workers who take a half day's
leave on Fridays should only work 50% of the total hours
worked on that day i.e. 50% of 7 hours = 3.50 hours = 8.00
a.m. - 11.30 a.m. This precedent is already established in a
company in Carlow where 1,200 workers are employed.


3. 2. The Union contends that where workers opt for annual leave
on a Friday, workers should be entitled to avail of the
shorter day on Thursday. This is in line with the spirit of
the P.N.R. i.e. a shorter working week.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The reduction in weekly working hours under the P.N.R.
calls for a reduction in weekly hours worked. It does not
call for a reduction in hours worked on a particular day.
Therefore Fridays must be treated the same as any other day.
Pay for Fridays is the same as for any other day i.e. 39 hours
divided by 5.

2. The mechanism for reducing the weekly hours worked is that
workers take the last working hour off on Fridays. The
arrangement was not intended to change Fridays from being
normal working days. Accordingly, as per practice, should a
worker wish to take a Friday afternoon off, he is required, as
normal, to work from 8.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. The reduction
in the working week was implemented by the 'Friday mechanism'
but this does not confer special status on hours worked or not
worked on Fridays.

3. The idea of transferability was never discussed or
understood by either party for inclusion in the agreement on
reduced weekly working hours. The fact that a holiday falls
on a Friday is irrelevant to the agreement. If the same
holiday falls on any other day, there can be no claim in
respect of reduced working hours. Since all days are paid
equally and since the reduction in working hours has nothing
to do with transferability or with the Holidays Act, there is
no valid claim for a shorter working day on Thursday when a
holiday or annual leave falls due on Friday.



RECOMMENDATION:

5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis on which it could justify recommending concession
of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,


Evelyn Owens
___9th____July,____1990. ___________________
A. McG. / M. F. Deputy Chairman