Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90153 Case Number: LCR12829 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BROOKS THOMAS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends concession of the Unions' claim for a one hour
reduction in the working week. The Court further recommends that
the reduction be implemented from the 1st July, 1990 and that in
the interim the parties agree the manner in which it is
implemented, taking into account the different existing practices.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90153 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12829
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BROOKS THOMAS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions are seeking a reduction in the working week by one
hour by means of a 4.00 p.m. finish on Fridays. The Company is
agreeable to a reduction in the working week but wants it
introduced by means of a 4.30 p.m. finish on both Thursdays and
Fridays with the 30 minutes currently provided on Thursdays to
cash cheques being eliminated. The Unions are opposed to this
facility being withdrawn. Following the failure of local
discussions the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 15th January, 1990. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference on the 19th February and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 11th April, 1990
(earliest suitable date).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A 1978 agreement provided for the claimants accepting
payment of wages by cheque in return for which they were given
time off to go to the bank to cash same. The Company is now
attempting to use this as a reason to deny them the hour's
reduction.
2. The workers concerned are paid on the basis of a 40 hour
week. If they are absent on a Thursday they are deducted
eight hours' pay, not seven and a half. Therefore, even by
the Company's reckoning, they are working 40 hours.
3. 3. The 1978 agreement was not of the claimants' making. It
was an arrangement which the Company insisted it must have and
was only reluctantly accepted. The workers have lived up to
their part of the agreement although it may not have always
suited them. The Company must now do likewise.
4. This is the only Company in the Builders' Providers area
with which the Unions have been unable to reach agreement on
the reduction of working hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants presently work a 39 1/2 hour week and are
not therefore entitled to a reduction in working hours and the
claim by the group of unions is therefore outside of the terms
of the P.N.R. Clause 2 of the Framework Agreement on Working
Hours states:-
" This agreement applies to employees whose normal
working week is at or above 40 hours, and only such
employees shall benefit from it."
2. A strict interpretation of the P.N.R. allows the
entitlement of reduced working hours only to workers whose
normal working week is at or above 40 hours; those working
less than forty hours are not entitled to benefit. However,
in accordance with the spirit and intention of the P.N.R. the
Company is willing to reduce the working week to thirty nine
hours provided that the time for cashing cheques is eliminated
in return.
3. The Company operates within a competitive market and it
would be commercially unrealistic and potentially damaging if
its trading hours were reduced below those of its competitors.
Under the Unions' proposals the Company's trading hours would
be reduced from 39 1/2 hours to 38 1/2. Under the Company's
proposal its trading hours would be reduced from 39 1/2 to 39,
in line with its competitors.
4. The Company would lose market share if its trading hours
were reduced and the resultant loss in turnover would have a
dramatic effect on the future viability of the operation and
consequently on the jobs of its employees. The intention of
the P.N.R. was to create jobs not to lose them.