Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90262 Case Number: LCR12948 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION - and - SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSION, TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 220 workers concerning the implementation of the 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. The fundamental purpose of the Framework Agreement on Working
Hours was to reduce by one hour the working time of employees
whose standard working week was forty hours or more. It was a
specific condition of the agreement that earnings for the revised
standard week would be the same as for the original standard week
- in other words there would be no loss or gain of pay. From an
employee point of view the application of the agreement related to
time and not to money. Therefore, a claim for compensation,
whether by way of extra time off in lieu or by additional payment,
in respect of annual leave weeks is not within the terms of the
agreement. Neither is the payment of overtime in respect of a
continuance of existing shift hours, provided equivalent working
time-off can be arranged.
With these considerations in mind and having heard the submissions
and arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court recommends
that the Unions accept the Company's proposed arrangements for the
application of the Agreement on the reduced hours of work.
The Court notes that, in respect of four-shift workers, the
Company's arrangements will have the effect of eliminating seven
proposed redundancies from the on-going discussions on the
Viability Plan.
The Court does not recommend the removal of the five minutes grace
time by the Company.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90262 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12948
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PFIZER CHEMICAL CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSION, TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of approximately 220 workers
concerning the implementation of the 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. In line with the Framework Agreement on Working Hours the
Company is prepared to reduce the working week by one hour. The
Company has put forward proposals on the implementation of the
reduction in hours. Three groups of workers are affected - (a)
day workers, (b) 2-cycle shift workers and (c) 4-cycle shift
workers. The Company's proposals are as follows:-
(a) Day Workers.
A one hour earlier finish on Fridays.
(b) 2-Cycle Shift.
Finishing time of the mid-week cycle to be reduced by one
hour. (As the roster covers a three week cycle the day that
is reduced by one hour will fall according to rota).
(c) 4-Cycle Shift.
Present coverage of forty-two hours per week per shift to
remain. Two of the three additional hours above forty to be
paid at overtime rates with the third hour being accrued as
time-off-in-lieu (T.O.I.L.). It is proposed that annual
leave of five weeks and sick leave would not attract T.O.I.L.
credits, therefore, the maximum credit for one years' work is
forty-seven hours.
The Company also proposes eliminating the existing five minutes'
grace period at start times before lates are recorded to help
off-set costs by ensuring a prompt start. Implementation date
will be the 1st of the month following agreement.
The Unions rejected the Company's proposals and on 23rd March,
1990, the issue was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at conciliation
conferences held on 5th and 11th April and 2nd May, 1990, and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court on 21st May, 1990, for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 20th June, 1990, in Cork.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
DAY WORKERS.
S.I.P.T.U. Arguments:
3. 1. The Union believes that the most suitable arrangement for
this group would be T.O.I.L. i.e. 6.5 days off over the course
of a year. The hourly rate should be adjusted to take account
of the one hour reduction.
Craft Unions' Arguments:
2. The most logical method of reducing the working week for
day workers would be on the basis of setting a new working
week as follows:
8.00 a.m. - 4.30 p.m. Monday to Thursday.
8.00 a.m. - 3.30 p.m. Friday.
The Company/Union Agreement should be modified to state that
the standard working week shall consist of 39 hour.
2-CYCLE SHIFT WORKERS.
S.I.P.T.U.'S Arguments:
3. The most appropriate arrangement for this group would be
T.O.I.L. i.e. 6.5 days off over the course of a year. The
hourly rate should be adjusted accordingly.
(The Craft Union Group are not involved in this area).
4-CYCLE SHIFT WORKERS.
S.I.P.T.U. Arguments:
4. On average this group work a forty-two hour week. The
Union believes that since this group, for operational reasons,
will have to continue to work forty-two hours per week, they
should receive fifty two hours pay and fifty-two hours
T.O.I.L. i.e. 6.5 days off per year. This can be justified on
the grounds that they work forty hours at standard rates and
two hours at double time. If the standard week is thirty-nine
hours then this would automatically mean thirty-nine hour
being paid at standard rates and three hours at double time.
Craft Unions' Arguments:
5. Shift workers should have their standard working week
reduced to thirty-nine hours per week. Where there is a
requirement for workers to work in excess of this, as there is
for 4-cycle shift workers, then overtime rates are applicable
for all hours worked after the thirty-nineth hour. The
Company/Union agreement should be adjusted to reflect this.
All hours worked in excess of standard hours are always paid
at overtime rates.
S.I.P.T.U. General Arguments:
6. The Union believes that the Company's proposal to alter
the clocking in time should not be dealt with in relation to
the Framework Agreement. It should be pursued in accordance
with the on-going plant negotiations on rationalisation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
DAY WORKERS.
4. 1. The issue relates to workers having a reduction in the
working week. In this instance the Company is in a position
to give an actual reduction in working hours. The day work
system is more efficient and economical if all workers finish
at the one time on a Friday rather than having one worker off
for a day.
2-CYCLE SHIFT WORKERS.
2. The proposal to grant one hour off each week on the
mid-week shift is, for operational logistics, the most
efficient method of implementing the one hour reduction. The
workers concerned will benefit from the reduced working time.
4-CYCLE SHIFT WORKERS.
3. The Company's proposal for this group will ensure that
these workers will have a standard week of thirty-nine hours
per week over a working year, as provided for in the Framework
Agreement.
4. To give time-off of one hour per week is not feasible in a
continuous process plant and would be highly disruptive. It
would not be logical to give one hour off per week since this
group of workers do not work a standard week. Some weeks
consist of thirty-six hours while others are forty-eight. A
rigid week basis is unrealistic.
5. To have the hour paid at overtime rates or given as
T.O.I.L. at double time is unreasonable and contrary to Clause
4 of the Framework Agreement which states that the parties
"shall have regard to - the costs involved, the implications
for competitiveness, the need for flexibility etc.". The
question of costs and competitiveness is of critical
importance to the future viability of the Company. The
Company can ill afford to incur additional costs. The Company
recognises its obligations under the Framework Agreement and
will comply with these but not to an interpretation that adds
to costs.
6. In order to cover the additional time-off that will accrue
to the 4-cycle shift workers, the Company will retain seven
operators who would otherwise become redundant under the
Company's Viability Plan proposals.
Company's General Arguments:
7. Elimination of the five minutes grace period at short
times is the only concession that the Company is seeking.
Within the context of the Framework Agreement the Company
considers it a legitimate request. The Labour Court has
supported similar approaches in other cases.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The fundamental purpose of the Framework Agreement on Working
Hours was to reduce by one hour the working time of employees
whose standard working week was forty hours or more. It was a
specific condition of the agreement that earnings for the revised
standard week would be the same as for the original standard week
- in other words there would be no loss or gain of pay. From an
employee point of view the application of the agreement related to
time and not to money. Therefore, a claim for compensation,
whether by way of extra time off in lieu or by additional payment,
in respect of annual leave weeks is not within the terms of the
agreement. Neither is the payment of overtime in respect of a
continuance of existing shift hours, provided equivalent working
time-off can be arranged.
With these considerations in mind and having heard the submissions
and arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court recommends
that the Unions accept the Company's proposed arrangements for the
application of the Agreement on the reduced hours of work.
The Court notes that, in respect of four-shift workers, the
Company's arrangements will have the effect of eliminating seven
proposed redundancies from the on-going discussions on the
Viability Plan.
The Court does not recommend the removal of the five minutes grace
time by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
___16th___July,____1990. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Chairman