Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90129 Case Number: LCR12870 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union for the implementation of a shorter working week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the arguments of the parties in
their oral and written submissions considers the offer of the
Company should be accepted and does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90129 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12870
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the implementation of a shorter working
week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 330 people at its two plants in Tallaght
and Ballyfermot. The Union represents approximately seventy
workers in the technical and clerical staff who work less than
forty hours per week. The Company has traditionally negotiated a
comprehensive agreement with each of the unions representing
employees at both plants. The last agreement expired on 31st May,
1989 and the Company re-negotiated agreements with the other
unions representing the majority of the workforce. Negotiations
were completed by the end of 1989 and the Company agreed to pay a
lump sum of #500 to each worker concerned in respect of entry into
the new agreement. Under the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) the Company also agreed to reduce weekly working
hours by one hour with effect from December, 1989 for those
workers working forty hours or more a week. When the Company
entered into negotiations with the Union it offered a lump sum
payment of #500 in line with the settlement with the other unions.
The Union claims that the lump sum payment is not acceptable and
is seeking a one hour reduction in the working week for its
members, or a 2.50% increase in wages, or a pro-rata combination of
reduced working time and increased wages. The Company rejected
the Union's claim and as no agreement was reached at local level
the matter was referred on 9th January, 1990 to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 23rd February, 1990 at which no agreement was reached and the
matter was referred on 2nd March, 1990 to a full hearing of the
Labour Court which was held on 19th April, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is entitled to claim for a shorter working week
based on considerations which are independent of the P.N.R. A
document issued by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions
(I.C.T.U.) headed "Guideline for Negotiations" states that
there is nothing to prevent workers from making such claims
based on considerations such as increased productivity, new
technology agreements etc.
2. Over the past number of years the Company has introduced
new technology and has increased profitability and
productivity. Any one of these consideration would justify
the Union's claim outside the terms of the P.N.R.
3. The Company in its lump sum payment offer acknowledges
that the workforce has made a considerable contribution to the
success of the Company. If there is nothing within the P.N.R.
which prevents lump sum payments being made then it is hard to
see why increases in the hourly rate of 2.50% or a shorter
working week could not be introduced.
4. In negotiations with the other unions representing the
workforce the Company agreed to the 2.50% increase on the hourly
rate resulting from a one hour reduction in the working week
and has made a lump sum payment to the workers concerned. The
Company claims that the P.N.R. does not permit the reduction
in the working week for the staff members concerned. However
the Union's claim is independent of the P.N.R. and should be
negotiated in line with the document produced by the I.C.T.U.
5. In recent times the Company has made lump sum payments on
re-negotiation of terms for comprehensive agreements which
give flexibility and increased productivity to the Company.
The payment of a lump sum is not now acceptable in respect of
a new comprehensive agreement and the Company should negotiate
on the Union's claim for a shorter working week, or a 2.50%
increase in the hourly rate, or any combination of both.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers represented by the Union work 37.5 hours per
week and are not entitled to benefit from the working hours
provision of the P.N.R. which was specifically designed to
apply to persons working 40 hours or more. The Union's claim
derives from the fact that other members of the workforce have
received the benefit of the reduced working hours under the
P.N.R. The Company does not accept the Union claim that it
can negotiate terms independently of the P.N.R.
4. 3. The Company's offer of a lump sum payment is the same as
that agreed with the other Unions. In previous years the
settlements for conclusion of comprehensive agreements have
been the same for all groups. The Company cannot change that
position without raising claims from other groups. Concession
of such a claim would have widespread repercussions in
industry generally where the benefit of reduced working hours
under the P.N.R. has not been extended to people working 37.5
hours.
4. The Union's claim is cost increasing and is in breach of
the P.N.R. The Company does not accept the basis of the
Union's claim for settlement of the comprehensive agreement.
The Company's offer is fair and reasonable and any further
claim is not justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the arguments of the parties in
their oral and written submissions considers the offer of the
Company should be accepted and does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___23rd___May,___1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman