Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90634 Case Number: LCR13265 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week in respect of:- (i) Production workers. (ii) Maintenance workers.
Recommendation:
9. (1) Production Personnel
The Court, noting that the proposals being put forward,
are for a trial period of six months and have the
capability of being reviewed at the request of either
party earlier, consider the following should be accepted
as a basis for the implementation of the 39 hour week.
(a) The reduction be effected by accrued time off to be
taken on the basis of one shift in eight weeks from
the date of implementation.
(b) Anyone absent for more than 4 weeks in the 8 week
accrued period will not qualify for the day off in
that period.
(c) Not more than one employee will be allowed time off
per shift under this arrangement.
(d) Hourly rate will be calculated as 1/39th's of basic
rate for calculation of overtime pay.
(e) The Company will make arrangements to select and
train the necessary operatives to cover grades 2 and
3 jobs.
(f) The Company wishes to remind its employees of their
obligation under the Company/Union agreement in
regard to tea breaks and flexibility and the Union
accepts these obligations on behalf of its members.
(g) The above arrangements will continue for a trial
period of six months, but at the request of either
party may be reviewed earlier.
(2) Maintenance Staff
The Court considers that the reduction in hours of work
should apply with effect from 1st August, 1990.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90634 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13265
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week in
respect of:-
(i) Production workers.
(ii) Maintenance workers.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute was discussed at local level and at four
conciliation conferences held on the 27th September, 1989, 17th
October, 1989, 22nd May, 1990 and 11th October, 1990. As no
agreement could be reached the issues were referred to the Labour
Court on the 23rd October, 1990. A Court hearing was held in
Cavan on the 26th February, 1991.
Claim (1) Production workers:
Background:
3. The claim concerns 81 general operatives. The Company
operates a three shift cycle Monday to Friday with a production
cycle of 120 hours i.e. three forty hour shifts, day, evening and
night shift. The Union is claiming a reduction in working time
which would involve a shorter Friday night shift with a 5.00 a.m.
finish instead of 8.00 a.m. This shift occurs every three weeks.
The Company rejected this method of implementation of the
reduction in working hours and offered a rotation on each of the
three shifts on a rolling basis, so that each general operative
would get the benefit of one day on either the day, evening or the
night shift every eight weeks. This offer was unacceptable to the
Union. Following the fourth conciliation conference in October,
1990 proposals emerged, which were acceptable to the Company,
based on the contents of a letter from the Union to the Company
dated 20th September, 1990 and with an amendment to replace
clauses (d) and (e) (Appendix A refers). The Company would offer
a 39 hour week on accrued time off. This offer which was
recommended by the Union Committee was rejected by the workers
concerned in a ballot.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the outset the Company has invoked the provisions of
the Framework Agreement on the reduction in working hours and
sought to defray the cost of implementation by securing
concessions from the workers concerned. The Company has
stated categorically that there was no possibility of a
reduction in production hours of 120 per week.
2. In March, 1990 the workers concerned accepted Labour Court
Recommendation 12580 which entailed major changes in work
practices and concessions to the Company by the workers. The
workers concerned are anxious to obtain the 39 hour week but
in view of all the concessions made under L.C.R. 12580 and the
fact that the Union is currently considering comprehensive
productivity proposals, it is not appropriate that other
concessions should be made.
3. The main problem is the method of implementation. It
would certainly improve the quality of life of the workers if
they had the short Friday night shift. At present, the
finishing time is 8.00 a.m. which effectively means that the
Saturday is of very little use, as most of the day has to be
taken as rest. If the workers were able to avail of the three
hours carried over to the night shift, a 5.00 a.m. finish
could be established which would have a significant
improvement on the value of Saturday.
4. In asking the Court to recommend that the 39 hour week be
implemented on an accumulated hours basis over a three week
period it must be pointed out that the workers concerned
operate a three shift system which allows very little social
or family life. The additional time on Saturday would be very
beneficial and would provide an improvement in the quality of
their lives.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company initially sought a type of flexibility as a
concession on the 39 hour week, i.e. that workers would clean
around their machines. This concession when it was not
granted by the Union was diluted to the form whereby the
ongoing arrangement for stand-ins in relation to dinner dances
and work councils was invoked i.e. Clause 18. The Company had
the right to invoke Clause 18 under the Company/Union
Agreement any way, in reality the Company was asking for
nothing in return for the introduction of a 39 hour week.
2. The Company cannot implement the reduced working week on
an accrued time basis without the flexibility on manning.
There is in fact a powerful argument in the Company for an
increase in working time i.e. a seven day four shift
operation so as to maximise the substantial investment in
plant and equipment which has taken place over the past few
years. Therefore it is necessary that the Company's final
offer be accepted by the Union.
3. The Company has modified its position four times. The
jobs in the Company are very tightly manned. If a worker is
out on accrued time off, then the slack must be taken up by a
spare worker or on overtime. This represents a further cost
to the Company. The cost of introducing the reduced working
week stands at approximately #30,000.
4. The Company is prepared to implement the 39 hour week as
per Appendix A from the date of agreement by both parties
which may come out of the Court's recommendation.
Claim (2) Maintenance Workers:
Background:
6. The claim relates to eleven workers in the maintenance and
stores department. The Company in a letter to the Union dated
30th May, 1990 put forward proposals for the introduction of a 39
hour week (Appendix B). The proposals were acceptable to the
workers concerned on condition that there would be retrospection.
The Union is claiming five days while Management has offered a
half days retrospection. This offer was rejected by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. From the outset the Company required a separate method of
implementation for the maintenance department. However it did
not make a proposal on the issue until 30th May, 1990. The
proposals were accepted by the workers concerned on condition
that there would be retrospection. The workers have lost five
days because of the delay in presenting the proposals. The
workers concerned have been very reasonable and patient.
2. The Company has been unreasonable in not allowing the
implementation pending reference to the Court on the
retrospection issue. This has caused further losses to the
workers concerned. The Company's offer of half a day's pay
was considered totally inadequate. The Union is seeking at
least five days pay in lieu of the losses caused by the
Company's inaction on this matter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company's initial position was that the workers in
this department could not be given time off, because of the
requirement for full cover from this section. Then Management
agreed that the reduction in working hours should be given in
the form of extended tea breaks. However, finally as a
concession to this group, the Company agreed to accrued time
off on day shift only.
2. The Company has at all times clearly stated that the date
of implementation of the reduced working week would be
effective from the date of agreement as is its position
relating to general operatives. Currently there is no
agreement between the Company and the workers concerned since
they are arguing for some form of retrospection to be paid.
3. The Company is not obliged to give a reduced working week
until the expiry of the Programme for National Recovery which
in this Company does not take place until July, 1991. However
as a gesture of goodwill, the Company has offered a half day's
retrospection i.e. four hours to the workers concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. (1) Production Personnel
The Court, noting that the proposals being put forward,
are for a trial period of six months and have the
capability of being reviewed at the request of either
party earlier, consider the following should be accepted
as a basis for the implementation of the 39 hour week.
(a) The reduction be effected by accrued time off to be
taken on the basis of one shift in eight weeks from
the date of implementation.
(b) Anyone absent for more than 4 weeks in the 8 week
accrued period will not qualify for the day off in
that period.
(c) Not more than one employee will be allowed time off
per shift under this arrangement.
(d) Hourly rate will be calculated as 1/39th's of basic
rate for calculation of overtime pay.
(e) The Company will make arrangements to select and
train the necessary operatives to cover grades 2 and
3 jobs.
(f) The Company wishes to remind its employees of their
obligation under the Company/Union agreement in
regard to tea breaks and flexibility and the Union
accepts these obligations on behalf of its members.
(g) The above arrangements will continue for a trial
period of six months, but at the request of either
party may be reviewed earlier.
(2) Maintenance Staff
The Court considers that the reduction in hours of work
should apply with effect from 1st August, 1990.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
26th April, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
APPENDIX A
20th September, 1990
Mr. P. McKiernan,
Production Director,
Boxmore Plastics Limited,
Ballyconnell,
Co. Cavan.
Dear Mr. McKiernan,
We outline hereunder our understanding of the offer in respect of
the 39-hour week which will be effective from Monday, 24th
September 1990 if agreed by ballot vote of our members (office and
maintenance staff excluded).
(a) The reduction would be effected by accrued time off to be
taken on the basis of one shift in eight weeks from the date
of implementation.
(b) Anyone absent for more than 4 weeks in the 8-week accrued
period will not qualify for the day off in that period.
(c) Not more than one employee will be allowed time off per shift
under this arrangement. A roster will be drawn up starting on
a seniority basis which will allocate shifts off and ensure
that all members get equal share of days, afternoons and
nights.
(d) Abuses of time at tea breaks musts be discontinued.
(e) Cover for meetings such as safety, works council,
Union/Management, and the agreement for weddings, dinner
dances etc. will be arranged in accordance with Clause 18 of
the Works Agreement. This Clause will not be automatically
invoked.
(f) Hourly rate will be calculated as 1/39th of basic rate for
calculation of overtime pay etc.
(g) The Company will make arrangements to select and train the
necessary operatives to cover Grades 2 and 3 jobs.
(h) This arrangement will continue for 6-month trial period but
can be reviewed earlier by either party.
Yours sincerely,
S.I.P.T.U.
_______________________
Pat McKiernan
Branch Secretary
S.I.P.T.U.
AMENDMENT
Clauses (d) and (e) to be replaced by the following:
"The Company wishes to remind its employees of their
obligations under the Company/Union Agreement in relation to
flexibility and tea breaks and the Union accepts these
obligations on behalf of their members."
APPENDIX B
30th May, 1990
Mr. Gerry Beacom,
Shop Steward,
S.I.P.T.U.
Dear Gerry,
Having considered the claim by the maintenance staff for the
introduction of the 39 hour week, we see considerable difficulties
with operation of accrued time off due to the numbers involved and
the need for the different degrees of maintenance cover on the
different shifts. However we are prepared to put forward the
following proposals, which are the best, given all the present
circumstances.
(A) The reduction in working hours would be effected by accrued
time off (equivalent of one shift in eight weeks) to be taken
at an agreed time.
(B) Anybody absent for more than four weeks in the eight week
accrual period will not qualify for time off.
(C) Time off will only be allowed when the employee concerned is
working the day (8-4) shift.
(D) Cover for meetings such as: Safety, Works Council and
Union/Management meetings along with the agreement for time
off to attend Weddings and Dinner Dances will be arranged in
accordance with Clause 18 of the Company/Union agreement.
(E) All maintenance staff must adhere strictly to
starting/finishing time and time allowed for tea-breaks.
(F) This arrangement to come into effect from date of agreement.
Yours sincerely,
For and on behalf of,
BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED.,
__________________________
P. McKIERNAN
PRODUCTION DIRECTOR.