Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89507 Case Number: LCR12850 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MCCARREN AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning: (i) Amended Sick Pay Scheme. (ii) Implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the issues before it the Court recommends as
follows:-
(1) Amended Sick Pay Scheme:
Having regard to the circumstances which brought about the
amended scheme the Court does not consider a claim for
compensation for changes to be warranted. The Court
therefore recommends that the Company offer of #75 towards
medical expenses over a three year period should be amended
to a sum of #120 and that the offer so amended should be
accepted by the workers concerned.
(11) 39 Hour Week
The Court is of the opinion that in the main the conditions
suggested by the Company attached to their proposal to reduce
the working hours are reasonable and notes that with the sole
exception of the 5.30 p.m. finish they are now acceptable.
In respect of this issue the Court is of the view that the
five minutes in question might more acceptably be gained by
an adjustment of one or both the morning and afternoon tea
breaks and recommends that the parties should consider this
option with a view to the introduction of the reduced working
week with effect from 1st April, 1990.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89507 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12850
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: McCARREN AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:
(i) Amended Sick Pay Scheme.
(ii) Implementation of a 39 hour week.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. These claims which concern approximately 140 production and
maintenance workers were discussed at various conciliation
conferences held in June and December, 1989 but no agreement was
reached. They were referred to the Labour Court on the 4th
January, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Cavan on the 7th
February, 1990.
Claim (1) Amended Sick Pay Scheme:-
BACKGROUND:
3. The issue concerning amendment of the existing sick pay scheme
had previously been the subject of a Labour Court hearing (L.C.R.
12159) and the Court recommended "...the parties should begin
direct discussions on amending the sick pay scheme and other
changes which would help minimise absenteeism." Following
negotiations between the parties the Company outlined its
proposals for a revision of the scheme in a letter to the Union
dated 26th April, 1989. The provisions included reducing the
maximum annual payment from 12 to 9 weeks, no payment for the
first 3 days of illness, a medical expenses scheme whereby
verified medical expenses would be covered up to a maximum of #75
over a three year period and increased payments under the annual
attendance bonus. The Union has claimed compensation for the
changes as follows:-
(i) An increase in basic pay or
(ii) An on-going annual lump sum of #200 or
(iii) #1500 lump sum "buy out."
The Company rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned will have to be compensated
adequately for changes in the sick pay scheme which is 23
years old. Their losses per annum will vary substantially
depending on whether they are married or single. The impact
of the changes will also vary depending on how many periods of
illness occurs each year. As the Company proposes to defer
benefit until the fourth day of illness instead of the second
day the workers concerned will lose 2 days pay once in a year
or a multiple of 2 days if off more than once.
2. The abolition of the 3 weeks benefit would cost a single
skilled worker #250.00. The loss to a married man with three
children would be #164.55. There would also be a further loss
of overall benefit by virtue of the reduction from full basic
pay to 90% of nett basic pay. It is reasonable to assume that
the overall loss for single workers will be in the region of
#400 p.a. and #300 p.a. for married workers with child
dependents. The Company's offer of #75.00 is a useful gesture
but it is unlikely to cover average medical expenses over a
three year period. The Union would contend that the amount
could be dissipated with one serious illness. The adjustment
in good time keeping bonus is likely to be very small.
3. The Company has refused to consider seriously the Union's
options for compensation and accordingly failed to give due
recognition to the workers' positive approach to this matter.
The workers' expectations in respect of compensation are
reasonable in the light of the length of time the sick pay
scheme is in existence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In return for agreement on the revised sick pay scheme the
Company offered to provide medical cover to a maximum of #75
over three years to each worker. The Union's claim for
compensation is inappropriate as the Company has already
implemented both the first and second phases of the 3 year
agreement as per the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.)
against a background of acute financial difficulties.
Originally the Company had refused to implement the first
phase pending agreement in the revised sick pay scheme. In
its earlier recommendation (L.C.R. 12159) the Court
recommended that amendments would best be dealt with outside
direct negotiations on the pay round. The Company accepted
the recommendation and implemented the first phase on the
understanding that negotiations would be finalised on
amendments to the scheme.
2. The Company implemented the second phase of the P.N.R.
despite the fact that the changes to the sick pay scheme had
not been implemented. The earlier Court recommendation gave
the Company the right not to pay further increases due under
the P.N.R. However the Union had agreed in principle to the
changes and the issue to be resolved was the amount of
compensation, if any, that should apply for these changes.
Given the serious financial difficulties of the Company,
Management is not in a position to consider implementation of
lump sums to the workers concerned. The changes that should
take place in the sick pay scheme have been agreed between the
Company and the Union. Having regard to all the
circumstances, the Company's offer of #75 medical allowance
over three years is fair, reasonable, and should be accepted.
Claim (2) 39 Hour Week
BACKGROUND:
6. The current working hours for production and maintenance staff
are as follows:-
Monday - Thursday - 8 a.m. - 5.30 p.m. (2 fifteen minute
tea breaks and 1 hour lunch break).
Friday 8.00 a.m. - 2.00 p.m. (one 15 minute tea break).
All tea breaks are paid breaks, lunch hour is an unpaid break.
There is a five minutes grace period at starting time, and a five
minutes paid break if the cutting line is operational from 10.15
a.m.. to 1.00 p.m. Following discussions between the parties on
methods of implementing a reduction in the working week provided
for under the terms of the P.N.R. the Company set out its
proposals in a letter to the Union dated 26th April, 1989 (see
appendix (A)). The Union rejected the proposals in particular
condition 3 which dealt with the elimination of a five minute
washing up break prior to finishing time at 5.30 p.m. The Company
states that improvements in efficiency as outlined in its
proposals are essential for continued viability. The Union argue
that no conditions should be attached to the reduction of one hour
in the working week as it was one of the few benefits under the
P.N.R.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union considers that the most beneficial arrangement
for the workers would be a reduction in the finishing time on
Friday to 1.00 p.m. This would result in increased leisure
time leading directly into the weekend. The preference for a
reduction on Friday stems from the present arrangement which
is almost three quarter rather than half a day.
2. If the Company's proposals were accepted it would mean
conceding more than the actual value of one hour. Condition 1
of the Company's proposals, if accepted, could mean that
members clocking in after 8.00 a.m. would lose #13.00 good
time-keeping bonus. Condition 3 proposes to remove a 5 minute
"washing-up" time before finishing time. The Union would
accept an amendment of the proposal whereby workers could
clock out at 5.25 p.m. and be paid to 5.30 p.m. to discourage
them from leaving work earlier than permitted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The financial position of the Company is extremely serious
and it is presently in an unsustainable loss making situation.
This position cannot continue. The workers concerned enjoy
extremely attractive rates of pay and conditions (details
supplied to the Court) given the acute difficulties in the
Company. Management expects some concessions from the Union
in return for a reduction in the working week. Originally the
Company sought five specific time conditions relating to the
reduction in the working week. The Union objected strongly to
two of these - overtime after 40 hours and clocking out at
5.30 p.m. In the course of negotiations the Company dropped
the issue of overtime after 40 hours. No reciprocal gesture
was forthcoming from the Union in accepting clocking out at
5.30 p.m.
2. On the issue of the date of implementation of the 39 hour
week the Company originally offered the 1st August, 1990 i.e.
third phase of the P.N.R. The Union sought an implementation
date of 1st January, 1990 some eight months earlier. In an
effort to secure Agreement the Company offered to implement
the reduction on 1st April, 1990. This was accepted by the
Union. The Company has maintained a very reasonable position
in negotiations on a 39 hour week, despite the acute
difficulties it is facing. The Company is prepared to
implement the reduced working week during the second phase of
the P.N.R. and is seeking only one significant concession
which has been rejected by the Union.
3. Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement in working hours
states that the parties in making agreements for the reduction
in working time shall have regard to the costs involved,
implications for competitiveness, need for flexibility,
affects on jobs, agreement on arrangements for the efficient
use of human resources, plant equipment, machinery. These
criteria should be utilised so as to minimise any adverse
effect on costs and employment. The points tabled in the
Company's letter of 26th April, 1989 are the minimum necessary
having regard to the implications for competitiveness and
should be accepted by the Union as an extremely fair and
reasonable agreement in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the issues before it the Court recommends as
follows:-
(1) Amended Sick Pay Scheme:
Having regard to the circumstances which brought about the
amended scheme the Court does not consider a claim for
compensation for changes to be warranted. The Court
therefore recommends that the Company offer of #75 towards
medical expenses over a three year period should be amended
to a sum of #120 and that the offer so amended should be
accepted by the workers concerned.
(11) 39 Hour Week
The Court is of the opinion that in the main the conditions
suggested by the Company attached to their proposal to reduce
the working hours are reasonable and notes that with the sole
exception of the 5.30 p.m. finish they are now acceptable.
In respect of this issue the Court is of the view that the
five minutes in question might more acceptably be gained by
an adjustment of one or both the morning and afternoon tea
breaks and recommends that the parties should consider this
option with a view to the introduction of the reduced working
week with effect from 1st April, 1990.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
21st March, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
APPENDIX A
Re: Company Proposals - Working Hours
Further to our meeting on Tuesday, 25th inst in the above regard,
I set out below the details of the Company's proposals for your
consideration.
The Company are willing to implement the reduction in working
hours as per 'The Framework Agreement on Working hours', forthwith
in return for agreement on the items outlined below. The mannter
in which the reduction in working hours is to be implemented is to
be discussed and agreed. The Company note your preference for the
reduction to be implemented on a Friday Afternoon, however, as
already outlined there are practical difficulties in this. The
Company will consider the matter further and respond to you at our
meeting scheduled for the 9th May.
1. Employees must be dressed ready to commence work before
clocking in the morning. Having clocked in dressed and ready
to work an employee must be on the line by 8.01 a.m. An
employee will lose his good time keeping bonus if he clocks in
after 8.00 a.m.
2. As in the mornings, employees must be dressed ready to start
work before clocking in after lunch. Having clocked in ready
for work an employee must be on the line by 2.01 p.m. An
employee will lose his good time keeping bonus if he clocks in
after 2.00 p.m.
3. Employees must clock out immediately having finished work at
5.30 p.m. and will not wash and change prior to clocking out.
4. Employees will be required to strictly adhere to the duration
of breaks. Employees will not leave their work station until
the siren signals the start of the break. The warning siren
will sound 13 minutes into the break and employees will be
required to return to work station and be fully prepared and
ready to commence work when the siren signals the end of the
15 minute tea break.
5. Overtime - Overtime rates will be paid after employees have
completed 40 hours.