Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90259 Case Number: LCR12916 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BALLINAMORE TEXTILES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week for 6 supervisors, 3 quality control personnel and 2 catering personnel.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company agree to the introduction of a 39 hour
week for the claimants herein concerned and that the method of
implementation be the subject of local negotiations.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90259 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12916
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BALLINAMORE TEXTILES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the introduction of a 39 hour
week for 6 supervisors, 3 quality control personnel and 2 catering
personnel.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1972. It manufactures
childrens clothing, supplying chain stores in Ireland and the UK.
Wages and conditions of employment for most of the workforce are
covered by the Women's Clothing and Millinery, Joint Labour
Committee Employment Regulation Order. Workers concerned with the
dispute are not covered by that Employment Regulation Order. The
dispute concerns a Union claim that a 39 hour working week should
operate as and from 1st June, 1990, i.e. the date agreed to by the
Joint Labour Committee for the introduction of the reduced working
week. The Company position is that, as the workers avail of a 15
minute paid tea-break each day, they are not working a forty hour
week and accordingly, they are not entitled to a one hour
reduction in their working week. The dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 27th April, 1990. No
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 22nd
May, 1990. However, the Company was prepared to adjourn the
conference to await the outcome of a Labour Court recommendation
on a similar claim, from another group of workers, but the Union
was anxious to have the claim investigated by the Court at an
early date. Both sides agreed to refer the dispute to a full
Court hearing. The Court investigated the dispute in Cavan on
29th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Up to 1978 the Company operated a forty one hour week and
in 1978 this was changed to a forty hour week (details
supplied to the Court). No actual change in working hours has
taken place since then. The workers concerned with the
dispute work a forty hour week, i.e.
Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m. - 5.15 p.m. = 35 hours
(.50 hour unpaid lunch break).
Friday 8.00 a.m. - 1.00 p.m. = 5 hours
____________
40 hours
They avail of a usual morning tea break but their working
hours as set down in their weekly pay slip is 40 hours.
Overtime payments are calculated on the basis of a forty hour
week.
2. Management claim that the workers do not work a forty hour
week because they avail of a 15 minute paid tea break each
day. The vast majority of workers within the State are deemed
to work a forty hour week and all enjoy a variety of tea
breaks with no impact on their basic working week.
3. The Womens Clothing and Millinery Joint Labour Committee
has legislated that the industry it represents must provide a
39 hour working week for all operative staff, effective from
1st June, 1990. Even if the workers concerned with the
dispute are not covered by that Employment Regulation Order,
it must logically follow that supervisors who have always
enjoyed the same working hours as operatives, continue to do
so. Under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery
Management have an obligation to implement a 39 hour working
week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to October 1978, the Company operated the following
hours of work:
8.00 a.m. - 5.30 p.m.
with 30 minute unpaid lunch break and
15 minute unpaid tea break.
Following negotiations in October, 1978 the Company and the
Union agreed to the following working week:-
8.00 a.m. - 5.15 p.m. Monday - Thursday
(.50 hour unpaid lunch break).
8.00 a.m. - 1.00 p.m. Friday.
15 minute paid morning tea break each day.
These hours confirm a nett working week of 38 3/4 hours.
4. 2. The Company considers that the workers party to the
dispute work a nett working week of 38 3/4 hours. Under the
Framework Agreement on Working Hours Clause 2(i) states that,
"This Agreement applies to employees whose normal working week
is at or above 40 hours, and only such employees shall benefit
from it". Accordingly, it is the Company's view that given
the amount of actual hours worked, the Framework Agreement
does not apply in this instance.
3. The Company acknowledges that it is stated on Company
documentation, i.e. wage slips, that the workers are paid for
40 hours basic, and that overtime calculations are similarly
based on 40 hours. However, in response, it is pointed out
that Clause 2(iii) of the Framework Agreement clarifies the
reference to a normal working week of 40 hours or more as
referring to "basic or standard hours worked on the basis
currently established by agreement or custom and practice".
In this instance the emphasis is clearly on those hours
actually worked, in accordance with Clause 2(iii). Through
custom and practice and certainly since 1978, the Company's
"standard hours worked" is 38 3/4 hours. This clearly leaves
the workers concerned with the dispute outside the scope of
the Framework Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company agree to the introduction of a 39 hour
week for the claimants herein concerned and that the method of
implementation be the subject of local negotiations.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
18th June, 1990
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.