Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90442 Case Number: LCR13039 Section / Act: S67 Parties: I. S. VARIAN LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Implementation of a reduction in working hours under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the provisions in the Framework Agreement on
Hours of Work, for the negotiation of reduced working arrangements
at individual firm level, the Court is of the view that internal
considerations rather than external relativities should be the
basis of such arrangements. Having considered the submissions
from the parties in this context, the Court does not find grounds
to uphold the Union's claim and recommends that the company
proposals be accepted i.e. by means of a one hour reduction in
finishing time on Fridays.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90442 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13039
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: I. S. VARIAN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Implementation of a reduction in working hours under the terms
of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of a wide range of
brushes, and employs approximately 40 workers. The Irish Brush
Manufacturers Association agreed the 1st January, 1990 as the date
on which the reduced working week would be implemented in the
trade, however the companies could not agree on the method of
application. The Union on behalf of workers in the Company
claimed that the reduction should be applied through the provision
of 6 days off during the year, at times agreed with management.
This was rejected by the Company which proposed that the reduction
be implemented through a one hours reduction in finishing time on
Friday afternoons, in return the Company is seeking various
concessions in relation to clocking in, breaks, etc. These
proposals were rejected by the Union which is now seeking the
reduction in hours by means of a half hour reduction in finishing
time on Fridays and three days special leave per annum in line
with an agreement reached with another brush making company
(Dosco's). This was unacceptable to the Company and on 31st
January, 1990 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 4th
May, 1990 and 28th May, 1990 arising out of which proposals
emerged, however agreement could not be reached and on 2nd August,
1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 24th
September, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is a member of the Irish Brush Manufacturers'
Association and in the past has insisted that all negotiations
on pay and conditions of employment should be negotiated
through that body. This was carried to the extreme in the
past when our members rejected proposals on pay and conditions
and the Company demanded that an aggregate vote of Union
members, including those in Daly's Ltd. and Dosco's, be taken
on the proposals. If the Company can insist on not creating
differentials within the trade on pay and conditions of
employment, then the workers will not accept a less favourable
settlement than that applied in Dosco's (details supplied to
the Court). The Union is therefore seeking the reduction in
working hours in line with that agreement. This would include
a half hours reduction in working hours per week and three
days special leave per annum, with full retrospection to 1st
January, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The P.N.R. clearly states that any developments in the
reduction in working hours would have to have regard to the
costs involved, the implications for competitiveness, the need
for flexibility, the effect on production and service, the
effect on jobs and the public finances and the exigencies of
the work involved. Although the Company and Union have
reached agreement on some work practices this only slightly
offsets the full cost of implementing the reduction in working
hours. This is due to the nature of the Company's bonus
scheme which management now regards as unsuitable. This
scheme is beneficial to the workers and the Company has been
understanding and helpful to their workers by maintaining it,
despite the very competitive environment in which the Company
operates.
2. The Union's claim for a half hour's reduction in finishing
time on Friday afternoons followed by three days "special
leave" is totally unrealistic and unacceptable to the Company.
The workers currently have twenty one days annual leave, ten
of which must be taken in August, five at Christmas, and six
floating days which may be taken at the workers' own
discretion. An extra three days "special leave" which could
be taken when desired by the workers would leave the Company
in the precarious position of being unable to maintain vital
machinery due to an excess number of workers being on holidays
and/or special leave. In all the circumstances, the Company's
proposals should be implemented.