Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90534 Case Number: LCR13049 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FRUIT OF THE LOOM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 2,000 workers regarding two matters pertaining to the 39 hour week:- (i) whether or not the Framework Agreement on Hours of Work applies to employees on day work in the Sewing/Finishing and Warehouse operations. (ii) the method of implementing the reduction in hours with particular reference to the Dyehouse.
Recommendation:
Claim (i):
The Court does not consider that the claim before the Court
can be sustained given the strict terms set out in the
"Framework Agreement on Hours of Work" which forms part of
the P.N.R. as the Agreement provides for a reduction in hours
for those whose normal working week is at or above 40 hours.
However the Court notes that management intends to make
proposals to a section of the workers associated with this
claim, namely warehouse staff, that meets their claim in
relation to the hourly rate.
The Court recommends that as a matter of equity management
should examine the claim for the remainder of the claimants
associated with this claim, against the background of
productivity/cost effectiveness and as a consequence create
the conditions to allow for the appropriate adjustment in
their hourly rate.
Claim ii:
The Court notes that the Union objections to the Company proposals
relate only to the staggered starting/finishing times and are
based on the disruption of travel arrangements rather than any
unsocial consequences. The Court also notes that the staggered
times occur only on a limited number of occasions each week and
relate to a limited number of employees.
Having regard to the provisions in the "Framework Agreement on
Hours of Work" to minimise the adverse effect on costs and also
having regard to the Company undertaking to seek to ameliorate
individual cases of transport difficulties arising from the
staggered times, the Court recommends that the Union accept the
company proposals for the introduction of the reduced working
week.
On an early acceptance of this recommendation, the Company should
re-instate the implementation date originally proposed.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90534 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13049
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FRUIT OF THE LOOM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employees)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 2,000 workers
regarding two matters pertaining to the 39 hour week:-
(i) whether or not the Framework Agreement on Hours of Work
applies to employees on day work in the
Sewing/Finishing and Warehouse operations.
(ii) the method of implementing the reduction in hours with
particular reference to the Dyehouse.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company currently employs approximately 2,000 workers in 4
locations in County Donegal (Ballymacarry and Shore Road in
Buncrana, Raphoe and Malin). The Company works a 5 day week,
Monday - Friday. The average hours of work vary as follows:-
40 Hours - 1. Warehouse, 2 shift rotating,
Ballymacarry.
2. Cutting Department, 2 shift
rotating, Ballymacarry.
39 Hours, 40 mins - 1. Knitting Department and Dyehouse,
3 cycle shift rotating, Shore
Road (40, 40, and 39 hours over 3
weeks).
39 Hours - 1. Sewing - Ballymacary, Malin and
Raphoe (daywork).
2. Warehouse - Ballymacarry
(daywork).
The parties first met on 20th June, 1990, to discuss the reduction
in hours. Agreement could not be reached locally and on 16th
July, 1990, both matters were referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 15th August, 1990, and the
disputes were referred to the Labour Court on 31st August, 1990,
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
disputes on 26th September, 1990, in Letterkenny.
Claim (i)
Background:
3. This issue involves 1,286 workers on day work. Of this total,
8 are employed in the Warehouse and the remainder in the
Sewing/Finishing operations. At present these workers work a 39
hour week and the Company maintains they are not entitled to any
concession in regard to the reduction in working hours. The Union
contends that these workers were unilaterally put on a 39 hour
week, as on alternative to lay-off, and that their working week is
in reality 40 hours because the Company reserved the right to put
them back on 40 hours at any time. The Union considers therefore,
that the best way of giving these workers the benefit of the
reduction in working hours is a 2.5% increase in their hourly
rate.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1981, the Company were experiencing problems due to
lack of orders and in order to avoid having to lay-off
workers, the Company unilaterally introduced a one hour
reduction in the working week, with an accompanying loss of
one hour's pay for which the workers have not been
compensated.
2. It was agreed that the normal working week would
continue to be 40 hours. Indeed, this fact was subsequently
included in relevant agreements and in particular in the 1983
Plant Agreement. It is under the terms of this Agreement that
the workers concerned are employed. It has been confirmed on
every occasion that it has arisen that the working week is 40
hours.
3. It is unfair to penalise the workers for obliging the
Company in the past. To do so would create inequalities
because shift workers in the warehouse would have their hourly
rate increased whilst the day workers would not. This would
lead to a situation whereby, excluding shift premium, shift
workers would get paid more than day workers despite working
the same hours on identical work.
4. The Union maintains that the normal working week for
these workers is 40 hours and they are entitled to a one hour
reduction and the appropriate increase in their hourly rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers concerned work a 39 hour week and are
therefore outside the scope of the Framework Agreement on
hours of work. To concede the claim would be in breach of
both the letter and spirit of the Agreement.
2. The Union's contention that management imposed the 39
hour week on these workers is totally inaccurate. The
inspiration for the 39 hour week came about as a result of
representations by the workers.
3. Prior to the advent of the Framework Agreement there was
never any query on the working of the 39 hour week. It was
well known through weekly hours worked, basic and overtime
calculations that a 39 hour week was in operation. The Union
is opportunitic in seeking a 2.5% increase on the basis that
had they been working a 40 hour week they would now benefit
under the Agreement. These workers have benefited from a 39
hour week relative to their colleagues for years.
4. The Company has rightly contested the references made by
the Union to the text of the Plant Agreement. Perhaps with
hindsight the reference to a normal working week in February
1983, should have made reference to the differing normal hours
operable in the Company. However, the reference to a normal
working week of 40 hours would have taken account of the
maximum rather than minimum number of hours being worked by
some areas of the Company. The Union clearly has chosen to
selectively ignore the fact that of the total 1,286 concerned
with this issue, only 137 would originally have been involved
in the move from 40 to 39 hours, with the remainder having
been specifically contracted to work a 39 hour week.
Claim (ii)
Background:
6. The Dyehouse has 3 Sections and currently 92 workers are
employed. All Sections commence and finish their shifts at the
same times. Average hours over a 3 shift rotating cycle are 39
hours 40 minutes based on the following shifts:-
Early Shift 8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m. (Monday - Friday)
Evening Shift 4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m. (Monday - Friday)
Night Shift 12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Monday - Thursday)
Night Shift 12.00 a.m. - 7.00 a.m. (Friday only)
The Company proposed to implement the 39 hour week for this group
by way of staggering the starting times of the 3 sections in the
Dyehouse. The Company maintains that this is necessary for
efficiency reasons. The Company proposed that the shifts be
operated as follows:-
Dyeing/Bleaching/Preparation:
8.00 a.m.-4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. 8.00 a.m. (Mon - Thurs)
8.00 a.m. - 3.00 p.m.
3.00 p.m. - 10.00 p.m.
10.00 p.m. - 5.00 a.m. (Fri only)
Pads:
9.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Mon only)
8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Tues-Thurs)
8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 11.00 p.m.
11.00 p.m. - 6.00 a.m. (Fri only)
Finishing/Drying:
10.00 a.m. - 5.00 p.m.
5.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Mon only)
8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Tue - Thurs)
8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 7.00 a.m. (Fri Only)
Operative date 1st June, 1990.
Each shift represents 39 hours per week.
The Union initially indicated acceptance of these proposals
provided the Company made some revisions to the schedule of hours.
Subsequently however, the Union informed the Company that
staggered hours would not be acceptable as it would have a
detrimental effect on the workers' conditions.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company's proposal to stagger the Dyehouse starting
and finishing times are totally unacceptable to the Union.
Such a proposal would impose conditions on the workers
concerned which do not apply to any other sections that have
common starting and finishing times. It would create serious
difficulty for those who travel to work together - bearing in
mind the unsocial hours worked and the scattered nature of the
workforce. It would also reverse the social advantages
normally associated with a reduction in working hours.
2. The Union believes that the most appropriate method of
implementing the one hour reduction is one that results in the
minimum change and disruption to existing work patterns. The
Union proposes the following shift cycles:-
Early Shift 7.00 a.m. 4.00 p.m. (Mon only)
8.00 a.m. 4.00 p.m. (Tue - Thurs)
8.00 a.m. 2.00 p.m. (Fri only)
Evening Shift 4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m. (Mon Thurs)
2.00 p.m. - 9.00 a.m. (Fri only)
Night Shift 12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Mon - Thurs)
9.00 p.m. - 4.00 a.m. (Fri only)
The Union believes these proposals to be fair and reasonable.
3. The Company has proposed dealing with the time accrued since
1st June, 1990, (the proposed date of implementation), by overtime
at time and a half. The Union believes that it would be more
appropriate for the time accrued at time and a half to be taken as
time-off.
4. The workers concerned have agreed to all other proposals made
by the Company to off-set the costs of a reduction in working
hours, however, the Union does not believe that the workers should
have to agree to the Company's proposals, which are unfair and
unreasonable in order to achieve a one hour reduction in working
hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Dyehouse, in the sequence of production, is in a
pivotal position. The vast majority of fabric used in
production emanates from the Dyehouse. It is intended to
almost double production by 1992. As a result, the Company
must give urgent and serious consideration to the structure of
working hours operable within the Dyehouse with a view to
enhancing the efficiency of throughput within the reduced
number of hours available to the Company. It is essential
that the timing of operations within the Dyehouse be
re-structured so as ensure full efficiency.
8. 2. To accept the Union's proposals would undermine the
purpose and intent of Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement,
which requires the parties to have regard to the need for
flexibility, the effect on production and services and agree
arrangements for the efficient use of human resources,
equipment and machinery.
3. The Union has referred to the fact that the Company's
proposals would lead to problems for workers in organising
lifts to accommodate the revised times and that Dyehouse staff
felt disadvantaged relative to those arrangements proposed by
the Company elsewhere. However, the Company points out that
shift work by its nature is unsociable and that shift times
are subject to change depending upon requirements. The
Union's views as regards the workers feeling disadvantaged
relative to colleagues elsewhere, ignores the basis of the
Dyehouse operation and indeed the Union's earlier support for
the Company's proposals.
4. The Company has as far as is practicable, sought to be
as accommodating as possible in its proposals. The Company's
final proposals which was outlined at the conciliation
conference is as follows:-
Dyeing/bleaching/preparation:
7.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Mon only)
8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Tue-Thurs)
8.00 a.m. - 2.00 p.m.
2.00 p.m. - 9.00 p.m.
9.00 p.m. - 4.00 a.m. (Fri only).
Pads:
8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Mon-Thurs)
8.00 a.m. - 3.00 p.m.
3.00 p.m. - 10.00 p.m.
10.00 p.m. - 5.00 a.m. (Fri only)
Finishing/Drying
9.00 a.m. - 5.00 p.m.
5.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Mon only)
8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m.
4.00 p.m. - 12.00 a.m.
12.00 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. (Tues-Thurs)
8.00 a.m. - 3.00 p.m.
3.00 p.m. - 11.00 p.m.
11.00 p.m. - 6.00 a.m. (Fri only)
5. The Company was surprised to learn that these proposals were
rejected by the workers in the Dyehouse as the Company believes
that these proposals, along with its offer to pay accrued hours at
time and a half, were very generous relative to many other
agreements concluded on the 39 hour week.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (i):
The Court does not consider that the claim before the Court
can be sustained given the strict terms set out in the
"Framework Agreement on Hours of Work" which forms part of
the P.N.R. as the Agreement provides for a reduction in hours
for those whose normal working week is at or above 40 hours.
However the Court notes that management intends to make
proposals to a section of the workers associated with this
claim, namely warehouse staff, that meets their claim in
relation to the hourly rate.
The Court recommends that as a matter of equity management
should examine the claim for the remainder of the claimants
associated with this claim, against the background of
productivity/cost effectiveness and as a consequence create
the conditions to allow for the appropriate adjustment in
their hourly rate.
Claim ii:
The Court notes that the Union objections to the Company proposals
relate only to the staggered starting/finishing times and are
based on the disruption of travel arrangements rather than any
unsocial consequences. The Court also notes that the staggered
times occur only on a limited number of occasions each week and
relate to a limited number of employees.
Having regard to the provisions in the "Framework Agreement on
Hours of Work" to minimise the adverse effect on costs and also
having regard to the Company undertaking to seek to ameliorate
individual cases of transport difficulties arising from the
staggered times, the Court recommends that the Union accept the
company proposals for the introduction of the reduced working
week.
On an early acceptance of this recommendation, the Company should
re-instate the implementation date originally proposed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
15th October, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman