Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90260 Case Number: LCR12917 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BALLINAMORE TEXTILES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (CAVAN |
Claim by the Union for the introduction of a 39 hour working week for 160 general factory workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not accept that an adjustment in Standard
Minutes consequent to the introduction of a paid 15 minute
tea-break over 5 days can be construed, having regard to accepted
Payment by Results practices, as being a reduction of 1 1/4 hours
in the attendance time of 40 hours per week.
The Court therefore considers that the claimants come within the
scope of Paragraph 2 of the Framework Agreement on Hours of Work
and recommends that the parties have further discussions with the
objective of implementing the reduction within the criteria
outlined in the Framework Agreement document.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
BRANCH
Worker: Mr. Walsh
Body:
CD90260 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12917
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 (CAVAN BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the introduction of a 39 hour working
week for 160 general factory workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1972. It employs 175 workers
to manufacture children's clothing for the supply of chain stores
in Ireland and the U.K. Workers wages and conditions are governed
by the Womens Clothing and Millinery Joint Labour Committee
Employment Regulation Order. A dispute arose in October/November,
1989 when Joint Labour Committee proposals were circulated
indicating that a 39 hour working week should come into operation,
with effect from 1st June, 1990. Company Management indicated to
the Union and workers that they were considering not reducing the
working week as workers availed of a 15 minute paid tea break each
day and accordingly, they were already working a 38 3/4 hour week.
In March 1990, Management advised the Union that the Company had
decided not to implement further reductions in the working week.
The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 8th March, 1990. It was the subject of a conciliation
conference on 1st May, 1990. Agreement was not reached and the
Union decided to consider other options for implementation, before
requesting a full Court hearing. On the 18th May, 1990, the Union
requested that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court. The
Company had already agreed to the referral and the Court
investigated the dispute in Cavan on 29th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The hours of work for the workers concerned with the
dispute are as follows:-
Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m. Start.
10.00 a.m. - 10.15 a.m. Tea Break
1.00 p.m. - 1.30 p.m. Lunch Break
5.15 p.m. Finish
35 hours
Friday 8.00 a.m. Start.
10.00 a.m. - 10.15 Tea Break
1.00 p.m. Finish 5 hours
____________
TOTAL 40 hours
2. Up until 1978, the Company was not paying for the morning
break. It is now claiming that since that time they have been
calculating overtime on the basis of 38 3/4 hours over the
minimum time rate set by the Joint Labour Committee. If this
is so, they have been acting in error because the particular
arrangement was never sought. They also claim that the
conversion rate for bonus calculation is based on 38 3/4 hours
per week - again there was never any claim or request made for
such a calculation. In any event, it does not alter the fact
that the workers are still working a 40-hour week and, in
making the required change in hours, it will not cost the
Company as much as it would if the above calculation were
based on 40 hours. Instead of the hourly rate for overtime
purposes increasing by 2.6% it could be reduced marginally.
3. The Company should recognise and acknowledge that they
have a very co-operative, hard-working staff and that they
have never had any industrial relations problems or strikes.
They should honour the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery and Framework Agreement on hours in full by conceding
the one hour reduction in the working week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company emphasise that it always has, and is willing
to comply with the provisions of the Employment Regulation
Order (E.R.O.) for the industry. However, in order to
determine whether or not the E.R.O. in respect of its
provisions on hours of work is applicable, an interpretation
of the Framework Agreement is required. Clause 2(1) of the
Framework Agreement states:-
"This Agreement applies to employees whose normal working
week is at or above 40 hours, and only such employees
shall benefit from it".
4. 2. The present operating hours within the Company are as
follows:-
8.00 a.m. - 5.15 p.m. (Monday - Thursday).
15 minute morning paid tea break
30 minute unpaid lunch break.
Friday:
8.00 - 1.00 p.m.
15 minute paid tea break.
These hours confirm a nett working week of 38 3/4 hours. All
rates and calculations for the category of workers concerned
with the dispute are arranged on the basis of 38 3/4 hours
(2325 minutes). Apart from basic rate calculation, the
Company has also paid overtime based on a calculation of
1/38.75 rather than 1/40th. Annual leave payments have been
based on similar calculations. At no stage since these
arrangements have been introduced, has the Union or indeed any
of its members, challenged the Company's calculations or
method of calculating working time. The Company see a further
reduction in the working week, as being beyond the spirit,
intent and scope of the Framework Agreement.
3. The operation of the 38 3/4 hour week is directly linked
to the Company's system of payment. Workers are on the
premises in any one week for 42 hours or 2520 minutes.
Outside of the 4 x 30 minutes unpaid breaks and 5 x 15 minute
paid tea breaks, the Company also provides during the course
of the week 18 x 7 minutes relaxation periods/allowances,
(i.e. Monday to Thursday - 4 x 7 minutes per day, and Friday
only 2 x 7 minutes). The breaks, which are apart from the
scheduled breaks are fixed periods for both personal needs and
for basic fatigue. The nett working hours in the Company is
(2520 - 321 minutes = 2199 minutes) 36 hours and 40 minutes.
This confirms that any further gross reduction in hours would
potentially have a serious effect on the productive time made
available to the Company.
4. If the Union's argument that workers are presently engaged
on a 40 hour week, i.e. 2400 minutes were accepted, the
Company would point out that as part of the basic minute value
for study purposes, the Company builds in a figure of 11%
(i.e. 264 minutes) to cover existing breaks. Taking into
account the 5 x 15 minute tea breaks and 18 x 7 minutes rest
breaks, this amounts to 201 minutes, leaving a balance of 63
minutes or 2.6% out of the total 11% which the Company affords
the workers in addition to its allowances for existing breaks,
in making the calculations. The Company would make the point,
that even in this situation, it would be affording an
additional 2.6% allowance which more than compensates for any
hour reduction.
4. 5. When calculating its conversion factor/rate per standard
minute, the Company does so on the basis of 38.75 hours, which
affords a rate of 5.1828p per standard minute. Had the
Company adopted the line that it base its calculation on a 40
hour week, the rate would have been set in current terms at
5.021p, i.e. some 3.23% less than that presently afforded.
The Company would therefore argue that in terms of the actual
worth of the proposed one hour reduction, the workers
concerned are already benefiting by some 3.23% in financial
terms by the Company basing its rates on 38.75, whereas a one
hour reduction from 40 hours, if applicable, would cost in the
region of 2.5%.
6. If the Court, having considered the arguments of both
sides, were to recommend that the Framework Agreement on
Working Hours did in fact apply to the workers concerned the
Company, in view of the associated costs of any reduction in
working time, would reserve its position with regard to what
would be a different issue of implementation and measures,
upon which agreement would have to be reached to offset the
total cost of the reduction.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not accept that an adjustment in Standard
Minutes consequent to the introduction of a paid 15 minute
tea-break over 5 days can be construed, having regard to accepted
Payment by Results practices, as being a reduction of 1 1/4 hours
in the attendance time of 40 hours per week.
The Court therefore considers that the claimants come within the
scope of Paragraph 2 of the Framework Agreement on Hours of Work
and recommends that the parties have further discussions with the
objective of implementing the reduction within the criteria
outlined in the Framework Agreement document.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
18th June, 1990.
A. McG. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.