Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91563 Case Number: LCR13508 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RYAN BROTHERS (ENNIS) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the Union's agreement to amend the
clocking-in procedure and to voluntarily stagger breaks and on the
understanding that the importance of strict adherence to
time-keeping is accepted, in the light of the necessities of
trading, the Court recommends that the reduction of hours be
conceded with effect from 1st July, 1991.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91563 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13508
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: RYAN BROTHERS (ENNIS) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in quarrying limestone and in the
manufacture of concrete products. The dispute concerns 25
workers. In May, 1990 the parties met to discuss the reduction in
the working week by one hour as provided for under the terms of
the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). In return for the
reduction Management proposed the elimination of the three minute
grace period when clocking in, the staggering of work breaks to
allow for continuous production, and the application of overtime
after the 39th hour. The Union rejected the proposal. The
parties failed to reach agreement at a further meeting held on the
16th January, 1991. The issue was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission on the 21st May, 1991. A Conciliation
Conference was held on the 7th June, 1991 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd
October, 1991. The Court investigated the dispute in Limerick on
the 3rd December, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned got little benefit from the P.N.R.
apart from the one hour reduction. The Company has obtained
its share of benefit from the P.N.R. by way of low wage
increases. It now wants the workers concerned to make further
concessions to cover the cost of the reduction of one hour.
The Company has the capacity to absorb the small cost of the
reduction. Nationally, a large number of agreements have been
concluded on the 39 hour week. Few of these have required
concessions from the workers. The Company should not have an
advantage over other employers through the creation of delays
in implementing the one hour reduction, and in attempting to
claw-back concessions in return. The 39 hour week should be
introduced, in respect of the workers concerned, as from 1st
July, 1990. This would coincide with its introduction in the
construction industry. The Company's main competitor,
Roadstone Limited, conceded the 39 hour week with effect from
1st March, 1990.
2. The Union is willing to consider a proposal from the
Company to change the clock-in time from its current 7.50 a.m.
- 8.03 a.m. to 7.50 a.m. - 8.00 a.m. and also to stagger the
morning break where it could be achieved voluntarily.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company employed 50 workers in the late 1970's.
However, cuts in expenditure on construction and road
maintenance, large scale price cutting, severe competition and
high production costs have led to an eventual reduction in the
workforce to its current level of 28. The Company has
accepted the principle of the 39 hour week but because of
market conditions and financial losses it cannot concede the
one hour reduction without some measures to offset costs. The
Framework Agreement on Hours of Work under the P.N.R. states
that "the reduction in working time must have regard to the
costs involved, the implications for competitiveness, the need
for flexibility, the need to maintain productivity and to
ensure the efficient use of plant and equipment".
2. The following arrangement is essential if the Company is
to offset its costs as provided for in the Framework
Agreement.
"(1) The adherence to strict timekeeping and the
elimination of the grace period is particularly
essential as the extensive nature of the the site
means that much time is lost.
(2) The staggering of work breaks would help to maintain
continuity of production loading and delivery
services. The Company has indicated that it will
roster such staggering and give appropriate notice".
The Company has adopted a reasonable stance and is anxious to
implement the 39 hour week. It considers its proposals
entirely reasonable and in accordance with the Framework
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the Union's agreement to amend the
clocking-in procedure and to voluntarily stagger breaks and on the
understanding that the importance of strict adherence to
time-keeping is accepted, in the light of the necessities of
trading, the Court recommends that the reduction of hours be
conceded with effect from 1st July, 1991.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
17th December, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.