Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90423 Case Number: LCR13058 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RACAL CHUBB IRELAND LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 22 workers regarding its entitlement to negotiate a reduced working week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submission in this case finds
that a Union is entitled to make a claim which is not contrary to
the P.N.R. and so recommends in favour of the Union claims which
it is stated will be based on productivity, new technology and is
not cost increasing.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90423 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13058
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RACAL CHUBB IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 22 workers regarding its
entitlement to negotiate a reduced working week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union wishes to make a claim for shorter working for staff
who work less than 40 hours per week and who did so prior to the
Framework Agreement on Hours of Work. The Union contends that
such a claim is not precluded under the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) provided the claim is based on considerations
independent of the P.N.R. The Company rejected that the Union has
any entitlement to make such a claim under the P.N.R. As no
agreement could be reached between the parties, as to whether or
not the Union was entitled to make its claim, the matter was
referred on 12th April, 1990, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference held on 22nd June, 1990 and the issue was referred to
the Labour Court, on 26th July, 1990 for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 4th
October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers on a 40 hour week got a reduction in working
hours and an increase in their hourly rate. The Union
believes that workers on less than 40 hours per week should
receive pro rata benefits. Whilst the P.N.R. only provides
entitlements for those working 40 hours or more, it does allow
for negotiations for other staff provided the claim is based
on considerations independent of the P.N.R. This view is held
by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
2. The Union from the outset has made it clear that its
claim is based on productivity, profitability and new
technology. The Union requests the Court to recommend that it
is entitled to make a claim on this basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company have abided by the terms of the P.N.R. and
will continue to. Furthermore the Company have agreed to
undertake a job evaluation to ensure equitable rates of pay.
2. The Company cannot stop the Union serving any claim.
The Company however, may reject any such claims on the grounds
that they are contrary to the P.N.R. or that the P.N.R. does
not specifically provide for the increase suggested.
3. The Union has at no stage requested increases on the
basis of productivity, new technology or profitability.
Should any such claims be presented to the Company each will
be examined on its own merit. However, since both the Union
and the Company are bound by the terms of the P.N.R. any
claims that are contrary to the Programme cannot be
entertained.
4. The benefits of the reduction in working hours as
provided for in the P.N.R. cannot be addressed to something
which is outside the scope of the P.N.R. which would be the
case should pro rata payments be granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submission in this case finds
that a Union is entitled to make a claim which is not contrary to
the P.N.R. and so recommends in favour of the Union claims which
it is stated will be based on productivity, new technology and is
not cost increasing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd October, 1990 Evelyn Owens
B O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman