Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90555 Case Number: LCR13096 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DEBA KNITS LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim concerning the method of implementation of a 39 hour working week.
Recommendation:
5. Having fully considered the submissions of the parties, the
Court recommends concession of the Union claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90555 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13096
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DEBA KNITS LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim concerning the method of implementation of a 39 hour
working week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures leisure wear products, primarily for
one major chain store in Ireland. It is comprised of three
sections, operating as follows:-
Fabric Knitting - working 5 days, 3 shifts.
Cutting - 5 day, day shift working.
Sewing and Finishing - 5 day, day shift working.
The standard working week is Monday - Thursday 8.15 a.m. - 5.45
p.m. with 45 minutes for lunch and Friday 8.15 a.m. - 1.15 p.m..
There are seasonal aspects to the business as the Company
experiences difficulty in filling orders for the normal 46 week
manufacturing year. In recent years the Company has had to
lay-off workers for periods of 2 - 20 days in January/February or
May/June. The projected lay off for 1991 is 10 days in May.
2. The Company has agreed to the implementation of a 39 hour
working week. The issue was raised by the Company at a Labour
Court conciliation conference on 23rd March, 1990, concerning a
revised hours scheme but the Unions requested that it be dealt
with separately at a later date. Discussions took place at local
level on 19th June, 1990. No agreement was reached and the
workforce then imposed the 39 hour working week by way of an
earlier finishing time of 5.30 p.m. on Monday to Thursday. The
issue was the subject of a Labour Court conciliation conference on
24th August, 1990. No agreement was reached as the Company
insisted that the workforce should accrue the one hour per week to
be used as extra leave during lay-off/slack periods. The Unions
were adamant that the working week should be reduced by way of an
earlier finish on Monday - Thursday or by way of a 12.15 p.m.
finish on Fridays. A proposal that workers would continue to work
a 40 hour week on the basis of one hour's overtime at time and one
half was unacceptable to the Company who requested a full Court
hearing. The Unions agreed to the full hearing and the Court
investigated the dispute on 9th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Both parties have agreed that the reduced working week
should be introduced as and from 1st June, 1990. However, the
Unions reject a proposal that the reduced working week be at
workers' own expense or that their bonus scheme be readjusted
to take account of the full cost of the reduction. The Unions
proposal to reduce the working day by fifteen minutes at
finishing time Monday - Thursday is a reasonable one.
2. The Company proposed that workers continue to work a 40
hour week and accrue the extra hour for paid holiday
entitlement during traditional lay-off periods. This proposal
does not achieve the objective of the P.N.R. which is to
reduce the working week to 39 hours.
3. Other Company proposals were (1) to implement the 39 hour
week and transfer one of the traditional August fortnight
weeks holidays to the lay-off time in May. (2) That the
Company would accede to the earlier finishing time from Monday
- Thursday if employees worked one extra hour on Fridays.
These proposals were unacceptable as (1) the annual holiday
arrangements within the Company would be drastically
interfered with and (2) an early finish Monday - Thursday
combined with an extra hour's work on Friday simply rearranges
the working schedule without achieving a 39 hour week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is essential for the wellbeing of the business that the
introduction of a reduced working week does not result in a
loss of output. Because of particular aspects of the business
the only way to ensure this is to accrue one paid hour weekly
and to take extra holidays when the Company is traditionally
in its slack period. At present workers have imposed a 39
hour week by way of a fifteen minute earlier finish on Monday
- Thursday. The Company has not changed the hourly rate of
pay and the resulting situation is that workers are working
for 2.5% less basic wages (39/40 as the Company deducted 1
hours pay) and the Company is suffering a similar loss of
output.
2. The Company's problem with lay-off periods is that
business overheads remain. If the Company's working year is
reduced any further there would be great difficulty in
achieving any level of profit as the extra costs cannot be
added to the selling price of its product. The Company's
profit situation is poor, with some losses being sustained in
recent years. The 39 hour week adds 2.5% to labour costs and
if the equivalent of 1 hour per week is lost in production
there will be an additional cost equal to a further 3.1% of
labour because of overheads.
3. The knitting department operates on a continuous basis for
five days per week, 24 hours per day. Shifts commence at 8.00
a.m. on Monday and finish at 8.00 a.m. on Saturday. The
midnight to 8.00 a.m. shift operates with one person on his
own, with the premises secure except for an emergency exit and
a personal emergency button. The area supervisor opens the
premises at 8.00 a.m. He returns at 8.00 a.m. on Saturdays to
secure the premises. It would be unreasonable to expect him
to come in at 5.00 a.m. if the week was reduced to 39 hours.
To employ outside security for this duty would be an
additional cost to the Company.
4. Knitting capacity is not always adequate and as each new
machine for that department costs from #35,000 to #50,000 such
expenditure cannot be considered. It is essential that
existing machines are operated for as much of the week as
possible.
5. Lay-offs cause considerable administrative problems such
as wage payments and providing information on Social Welfare
entitlements. Substituting additional holidays may avoid
this. While some workers may be able to manage with the loss
of income resulting from lay-off, others cannot and any
measure to reduce losses should be welcomed.
6. The Court is asked to recommend that workers accept one of
the two Company proposals i.e. workers should work a 40 hour
week and save the extra hour for lay-off time or they work a
39 hour week and rearrange holidays to overlap with slack
periods.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having fully considered the submissions of the parties, the
Court recommends concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
28th November, 1990 Chairman.
A.McG./J.C.