Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90274 Case Number: LCR12967 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 200 four cycle shift workers for the introduction of a 39 hour week in the Longford plant.
Recommendation:
6. The Framework Agreement on Hours of Work set out the criteria
for the local negotiation of a reduction in the working week to 39
hours. Its fundamental objective related to work-time and not to
money in so far as a reduced working week was to be achieved
without loss or gain of basic weekly pay to the workers concerned.
The agreement provided for overtime working only where reduced
working time was impracticable.
The circumstances prevailing in this case require full four-shift
working to ensure the necessary utilisation of plant and the
retention of viability. This situation is not in dispute and
therefore overtime working is inevitable. Because of the
multiplicity of jobs involved, relief-staff is not a practical
proposition so overtime must be worked by the existing staff. The
real issue is the overtime arrangements to apply.
The Union seeks an accumulation of one hour per week to be taken
by way of an additional weeks leave. This arrangement would not
in effect reduce the hours worked by individuals over the year
because they in turn would have to work an equivalent amount of
overtime to cover for colleagues taking the accumulated time-off.
The overtime costs related to this arrangement would be in the
highest region and would be accompanied by production
difficulties.
The Company proposes to continue existing working arrangements and
to pay the workers an hours overtime at the appropriate rate each
week.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is of
the view that the Company's proposal is more in keeping with the
criteria set out in the Framework Agreement and recommends that
the Union accepts it. The Court further recommends that the
application date for the 39 hour week should be 1st July, 1990.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90274 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12967
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 200 four cycle
shift workers for the introduction of a 39 hour week in the
Longford plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. In accordance with the Framework Agreement on Hours of work,
the Union on 8th November, 1989, sought the introduction of the 39
hour week. On 16th November, 1989, the Company confirmed its
intention to reduce the standard working week during Autumn 1990.
(The P.N.R. does not expire in the Company until February, 1991).
The Company also proposed that as 4-cycle shift working is an
ongoing requirement, the Company would increase the hourly rate so
that current 40 hour earnings would be paid for 39 hours, the 40th
hour would be paid at new basic rates and the 41st and 42nd hours
would be worked on overtime. This proposal would entail a basic
pay increase of 2.56%. The Union rejected the Company's proposal
and on 7th December, 1989, the issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference held on 25th January, 1990, the Union advised the
Company that (a) the workers must have the benefit of additional
time-off as a result of the introduction of a shorter working
week, (b) that the best method of achieving this was the
introduction of a system of accumulated time-off and (c) that the
hourly rate must increase as a result of (a) and (b). The
conciliation conference was adjourned so that both sides could
consider their respective positions.
3. At a resumed conciliation conference held on 23rd May, 1990,
the Company again rejected the Union's proposal on the basis that
from an operational viewpoint it was unworkable and from a cost
viewpoint it would impose an unsustainable burden on the Company.
The Company indicated that it was willing to apply the same terms
as had been agreed in respect of the Tullamore plant. This
entailed treating the 40th hours as overtime in the same manner as
the 41st and 42nd hours. This would in effect increase the
Company's costs by 3.46%. The date of implementation to be July,
1990. The Union rejected this proposal and on 28th May, 1990, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 9th July,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The intention of the social partners in drawing up the
Framework Agreement was that the shorter working week would
increase the leisure time of workers. The Union's proposal of
a system of accumulating time-off would increase leisure time.
It would also be in line with the Framework Agreement,
specifically the clauses relating to efficient use of
manpower, plant, equipment and machinery.
2. The workers have recently co-operated fully in a major
rationalisation programme which has resulted in increased
flexibility, in the plant. This should be off-set against
Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement.
3. Both locally and nationally it has been recognised that
the best way to introduce the 39 hours week for 4 cycle shift
workers is a system of accumulated time-off. It has already
been introduced in a number of companies (details supplied).
4. If a system of accumulated time-off is introduced then
the hourly rate must be increased as the accumulated time-off
is in fact a banking of worked time and not additional annual
leave.
5. The Union believes that the most appropriate date for
the implementation of a reduction in the working week is 1st
October, 1989, as this date recommends the mid-point of the
Programme for National Recovery in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement notes that the
parties must have regard for the costs involved and the
implications for competitiveness. In order to maintain a
continuous process operation, which is essential, the Company
will incur a 3.46% increase in costs through additional
overtime. This figure, which is greater than the norm,
represents the limit of the Company's ability to pay for the
change. The Union's proposal would represent a 4.5% increase
in costs based on current basic rates. This would be totally
at variance with Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement.
5. 2. From an operational point of view the Union's proposal
would cause serious disruption to the running of a shift as
the 209 workers would have to take a total of 836 shifts off
during scheduled production periods. This would add
considerably to the Company's current overtime difficulties
whereby overtime is running at 1,470 hours per week due to
absenteeism, training, floating holidays and production needs.
Adding to this overtime would make the Company even more
dependent on the availability of skilled personnel
3. Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement states that the
objective of the Agreement is that any reduction in hours
should be achieved without recourse to overtime. This is an
impossibility in this instance however, the Agreement
implicitly recognises the need to minimise the cost of
necessary overtime.
4. Clause 3 of the Framework Agreement recommends that
negotiations take place at the level where pay and conditions
are normally negotiated. This recognises the different needs
facing different organisations. The Company's policy is
consistent with the economic environment in which it operates
and the production and cost requirements it faces.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Framework Agreement on Hours of Work set out the criteria
for the local negotiation of a reduction in the working week to 39
hours. Its fundamental objective related to work-time and not to
money in so far as a reduced working week was to be achieved
without loss or gain of basic weekly pay to the workers concerned.
The agreement provided for overtime working only where reduced
working time was impracticable.
The circumstances prevailing in this case require full four-shift
working to ensure the necessary utilisation of plant and the
retention of viability. This situation is not in dispute and
therefore overtime working is inevitable. Because of the
multiplicity of jobs involved, relief-staff is not a practical
proposition so overtime must be worked by the existing staff. The
real issue is the overtime arrangements to apply.
The Union seeks an accumulation of one hour per week to be taken
by way of an additional weeks leave. This arrangement would not
in effect reduce the hours worked by individuals over the year
because they in turn would have to work an equivalent amount of
overtime to cover for colleagues taking the accumulated time-off.
The overtime costs related to this arrangement would be in the
highest region and would be accompanied by production
difficulties.
The Company proposes to continue existing working arrangements and
to pay the workers an hours overtime at the appropriate rate each
week.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is of
the view that the Company's proposal is more in keeping with the
criteria set out in the Framework Agreement and recommends that
the Union accepts it. The Court further recommends that the
application date for the 39 hour week should be 1st July, 1990.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st July, 1990 Kevin Heffernan
B O'N/U.S. ---------------
Chairman