Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90344 Case Number: LCR13079 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RADIAC ABRASIVES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties it is
clear to the Court that the standard hours of work of the workers
concerned in this claim are such as to invalidate any claim for a
further reduction under the relevant terms of the Programme for
National Recovery.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company's offer to adjust
the hourly rate should be accepted as fully meeting their
obligation under the Programme.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90344 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13079
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RADIAC ABRASIVES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of rubber bonded
abrasive wheels, primarily for export, and employs fifty five
workers. In January, 1990 the Union submitted a claim to the
Company for a reduction in the working week from 40 to 39 hours as
provided for under the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.). The Company rejected the claim stating that
the workers concerned are already working less than a 40 hour
week. The issue could not be resolved at local discussions and
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
the 26th February, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on
the 1st June, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 19th June, 1990. A Court
hearing was held in Tralee on the 3rd October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In January, 1983 the Company sought to rationalise its
operations and at that time the Company operated a two cycle
shift system. Part of the rationalisation plan was to revert
to day working only. Agreement was reached on compensation
for loss of shift premium. The shift premium was consolidated
as part of the basic pay in April, 1984. In February, 1983
further agreement was reached for an increase in productivity
in return, the Company re-introduced meal breaks similar to
those worked on shift. It was clearly understood that it
remained a condition of employment that employees would work
shifts when requested by Management. In effect, this meant
that shift workers worked temporarily on days. The working
day then became 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with a 25 minute meal
break, the same hours of work as shift workers.
2. The Company now claims that the workers concerned are
working less than 40 hours a week on the basis of the 1983
agreement, but since 1983, the Company has insisted that the
working week is 40 hours and have documented this on a number
of occasions. In October, 1987, the Union claimed an increase
in the hourly rate of pay by excluding meal breaks from the
hours of work. This claim was totally rejected by the Company
on the basis that the working week was 40 hours.
3. In July, 1987 a dispute arose regarding overtime working.
The Company argued that workers should be paid overtime only
on all hours over and above the 40 hour normal working week
instead of normal finishing time on a daily basis. The
Company confirmed their position in writing which recognised
the normal working as 40 hours (details supplied to the
Court).
4. In July, 1988, the Company recruited a number of new
workers initially on a temporary basis and these were
appointed permanently in December, 1988. At that time the
Company issued the terms of employment setting out the hours
of work from 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. The Union has
demonstrated that the working week in this employment is 40
hours and the workers concerned qualify for a reduction in
working time as per the terms of the P.N.R.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned are employed from 8.30 a.m. to 4.30
p.m. This includes two paid breaks, of 15 minutes in the
morning and 25 minutes at lunchtime, amounting to 40 minutes
per day. Thus, the actual hours worked are 36 hours, 40
minutes per week. If we include the morning break as working
time, this gives a working week of 37 hours, 55 minutes. The
reduction therefore under the P.N.R. does not apply.
2. Prior to 1983 the Company operated a 40 hour week, however
in an effort to increase productivity, the Company introduced
a trial period productivity agreement in May, 1983. In return
for extra productivity the working hours were revised to 37
hours 55 minutes. At a Company/Union meeting in October,
1983, the Union clearly indicated its understanding that the
working hours had been reduced. This was confirmed by the
Company on 18th October, 1983. This productivity agreement
incorporating reduced working hours was finally agreed in
December, 1983.
3. Though employees work less than a 38 hour week, their
hourly rate of pay is calculated on a 40 hour basic with
overtime paid after 40 hours. This reflected the normal
working week prior to the P.N.R. In January, 1990 the Company
offered to adjust the hourly rate of pay to reflect the new
national norm of a 39 hour week. Thus the hourly rate would
be adjusted and this would also form the basis for overtime
calculations.
4. The Company is of the firm view that the Union's claim is
outside the terms of the P.N.R. which clearly states that the
hours reduction only applies "to employees whose normal
working week is at or above 40 hours."
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties it is
clear to the Court that the standard hours of work of the workers
concerned in this claim are such as to invalidate any claim for a
further reduction under the relevant terms of the Programme for
National Recovery.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company's offer to adjust
the hourly rate should be accepted as fully meeting their
obligation under the Programme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________________
31st October, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O.'D./J.C.