Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90330 Case Number: AD9038 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DOUWE EGBERTS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners Recommendation S.T. 59/90 concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the views of the parties
expressed in their oral and written submissions. The Court takes
the view that the workers concerned should be conceded the
reduction in hours to 39 per week on this occasion without loss of
pay. In respect of any further agreement on the reduction of
hours this will have to be achieved by agreement between the
parties which will take account of and not interfere with the
external linkage with the analogous companies.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90330 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3890
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: DOUWE EGBERTS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation S.T. 59/90 concerning the introduction of a 39 hour
week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the processing of tobacco and
employs approximately 130 workers. The claim concerns thirteen
workers who are employed in the clerical section. Wages and
conditions in all sections of the plant are based on analogues of
related grades in three outside companies in the tobacco industry.
The working week in Douwe Egberts is 40 hours (as per a House
Agreement) while the average for clerical employees in the
external companies is 36. The workers concerned are paid the rate
for 36 hours as per the average in the industry plus an additional
four hours pay to work to 40 hours. In accordance with the
provisions of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) the
Union submitted a claim on behalf of the workers concerned for a
reduction in the working week to 39 hours (the same as their
colleagues in the production and craft sections). The Company
rejected the claim on the grounds that the workers could not have
their working week reduced to 39 hours without loss of pay and
maintain the strict relativity with the external companies. The
dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation on the 9th March, 1990. On the 16th March,
1990 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:-
"I recommend that the reduction to 39 hours should be conceded
on this occasion only without loss of pay. The new rate
emerging will last until the next reduction in hours which is
scheduled for the future. Upon the next reduction in hours
for the general body of workers in the plant the claimants
will revert to the 36 hour week at the Analogue rate then
pertaining on condition that they will continue to work the
additional hours up to the agreed factory hours at overtime
rates. For example if the next general reduction is to 38
hours the claimants will work 2 hours at 1.50 yielding 3 hours
additional pay. Each successive decrease in the working week
generally will be treated in the same way."
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
the 11th June, 1990 appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was
held in Longford on the 28th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union cannot accept the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation because a further reduction in the working week
would mean a loss of earnings for the workers concerned. The
average working week in the industry for craft and production
workers is now down to 38 with the possibility of reducing to
37.50 hours in the near future.
2. Movement in wages or conditions of one section or group
has not in the past or does not, in accordance with House
Agreement on relativity, mean a move for all sections and
groups. The Union's claim is in accordance with the Programme
for National Recovery clause on the reduction in the working
week and not on something which may or may not happen in the
future.
3. If additional movement is to take place in relation to the
working week in the future then it will have to be guided by
the House Agreement and be in accordance with the national
agreement applying at that time.
4. The Company has consistently refused to consider internal
relativities on any previous claims arguing that the only
relativity they recognise is the external one. If the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation was to stand then the Company
would in future have to recognise internal relativities.
5. The Union contends that the Rights Commissioners
recommendation should be reversed and that the workers
concerned should be awarded the 39 hour week without loss of
earnings and back dated to the time it was agreed with other
sections in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Concession of the Union's claim would undermine the whole
relativity arrangement with the external companies, and the
Company is strongly against such a proposal. The problem will
be further exacerbated by the fact that the working week
within the tobacco industry is likely to reduce to 37.50 hours
in the near future.
2. The clerical workers are being paid for a 36 hour week in
accordance with the rest of the industry and also receive an
additional 4 hours pay. If the working week were reduced to
37.50 hours, again without loss of pay, they would then be
receiving 4 hours pay for 1.50 hours work. As well as
undermining the strict relativity arrangement with the rest of
the industry, it would create a whole new precedent for
overtime pay. The Company is not prepared to tolerate such a
situation.
3. The Company's submission at the Rights Commissioners
hearing to resolve the dispute (details supplied to the Court)
represented a fair and equitable solution to the Union's claim
whilst still preserving the strict relativity arrangements
pertaining in Douwe Egberts. The Union rejected this
proposal.
4. Whilst the Rights Commissioner's recommendation was not
exactly what the Company wanted nevertheless management
accepted the recommendation on the basis that the Company
recognised it as a considered attempt to bridge the position
of both sides.
5. The Company cannot emphasise strongly enough the serious
implications of this issue for the hitherto successful
determination of wages and conditions of employment in Douwe
Egberts and requests the Court to uphold the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. The Court has fully considered the views of the parties
expressed in their oral and written submissions. The Court takes
the view that the workers concerned should be conceded the
reduction in hours to 39 per week on this occasion without loss of
pay. In respect of any further agreement on the reduction of
hours this will have to be achieved by agreement between the
parties which will take account of and not interfere with the
external linkage with the analogous companies.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
14th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.