Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90566 Case Number: LCR13052 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TAMBRANDS IRELAND - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
On the matter of reducing the working hours the Court is of the
view that, regardless of the prosperity of the firm concerned the
parties are obliged to take account of, and where reasonable,
modify the cost of the reduction. In this particular case the
Court is of the opinion that three of the Company's specific
proposals warrant serious consideration in the context of a
reduction of working hours i.e.
(1) A formalisation of breaks.
(2) Use by the F.P.D. of its own toilet/rest facility.
(3) Provision of emergency cover on fibre lines for the
limited period requested by the Company.
It is clear to the Court that the question of formalising the
breaks requires further direct discussions between the parties.
The Court therefore recommends that these begin without further
delay and that subject to the safeguards and undertakings already
offered by the Company proposals 2 and 3 be accepted by the Union.
Other issues raised should of course be discussed at an
appropriate time.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90566 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13052
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TAMBRANDS IRELAND
(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 located in Tipperary and employs approximately
270 workers. In October, 1989 the Union submitted a claim to the
Company for the introduction of a 39 hour week as provided for
under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
In response the Company set out the following proposals which give
accrued time off, of six days per annum.
(1) The reduction of relief breaks from 10 to 7 minutes.
(2) The use by the Fibre Processing Department, (F.P.D.) in
normal circumstances, of that Departments toilet/rest
facility.
(3) Provision of emergency cover for up to one hour to run
fibre lines where an operator is absent without
notification to the Company. The request for cover is
for occasions when the spare operator/operators are
already covering and where additional unplanned absence
occurs.
(4) The Company sought that 2 hours normally taken off
without pay on the holiday break-up days in August and
Christmas would be paid, but that this would count as one
half day accrued time.
(5) The Company sought increased efforts to improve
housekeeping.
The Union rejected the proposals specifically (1) and (3) and the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on the 21st May, 1990. Conciliation conferences were held
on the 22nd May, 24th July and 20th September, 1990 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 26th September, 1990. A Court hearing was held in
Limerick on the 2nd October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the Framework Agreement on Working Hours both
parties are to have regard to costs involved, implications for
competitiveness, the need for flexibility, the effect on
production, the effect on jobs, the exigencies of the work.
This has all been taken into account by the Union. The
conclusion is that the Company is extremely profitable and it
is made so by the almost daily contributions of the workers
concerned to productivity and flexibility. In relation to the
Company's position regarding their right to demand concessions
- at no place in the Framework or the original Agreement is
such a right conceded.
2. On the contrary, it points to issues which both parties
must have regard to for example the cost involved. The cost
involved in this claim would have no major impact on the
position of the Company. The workers concerned have accepted
wage increases far below what the Company could afford over a
three year period, on the understanding that they would have a
reduction in working hours.
3. At no stage have the Company indicated how the 2.51%
increase in the costs involved will have any significant
impact on the Company's competitiveness or jobs. The Union is
not prepared to give any concessions other than (2) (4) and
(5) because they believe these are more than sufficient. The
Company has received massive levels of co-operation with new
methods, productivity and flexibility which have not been
rewarded with any concessions by the Company. For example in
the F.P.D. area the number of operators has been reduced by 9
workers yet production has increased over the same period.
4. The Union believes that the guiding principle of the
Framework Agreement was that workers would benefit from the
same trends as other European workers. The move to a 39 hour
week is a very small step in their aspirations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The accrued time off system of 6 days per annum is
acceptable to both parties however the outstanding issue is
the question as to how the Company can remain competitive.
This competitive edge is essential to maintain confidence in
the Company's plans for continued expansion. Since the P.N.R.
commenced in 1987, 80 jobs have been created at the Tipperary
plant with plans for a further 60 by the end of 1991. The
first and second phases of the P.N.R. have been paid and an
extra #4 p.w. and lump sum of #50 was paid in respect of
future ongoing change. The Company has offered to pay the
final phase of the Agreement but the offer has not been
accepted by the Union.
2. The Company needs to ensure no major cost increase as a
result of the implementation of the 39 hour week. In keeping
with the Framework Agreement the Company has sought to offset
part of the cost of conceding the 39 hour week, and the
Company's proposals are reasonable in this context however the
Union has rejected items (1) and (3).
3. The Company recognises the concern expressed by the Union
representatives in relation to the ability to attend to toilet
needs outside normal relief times, but is satisfied that
genuine needs can be accommodated at any time during the day
shift.
4. The Union requested that the emergency cover given in the
Fibres Processing Department would not constitute a precedent
for reducing manning levels of the lines and the Company
accepts that any permanent reduction of the manning levels
would only take place following consultation and agreement
with the workforce.
5. Management believes that the proposals are realistic and a
practical way of implementing the reduction in working hours
while enabling it to remain competitive by contributing, to
some extent, to the cost of implementation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
On the matter of reducing the working hours the Court is of the
view that, regardless of the prosperity of the firm concerned the
parties are obliged to take account of, and where reasonable,
modify the cost of the reduction. In this particular case the
Court is of the opinion that three of the Company's specific
proposals warrant serious consideration in the context of a
reduction of working hours i.e.
(1) A formalisation of breaks.
(2) Use by the F.P.D. of its own toilet/rest facility.
(3) Provision of emergency cover on fibre lines for the
limited period requested by the Company.
It is clear to the Court that the question of formalising the
breaks requires further direct discussions between the parties.
The Court therefore recommends that these begin without further
delay and that subject to the safeguards and undertakings already
offered by the Company proposals 2 and 3 be accepted by the Union.
Other issues raised should of course be discussed at an
appropriate time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
15th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.