Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90721 Case Number: LCR13176 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NOKIA LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Introduction of a thirty-nine hour working week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is of the opinion that the terms set out in the I.R.O.'s letter
of the 29th November, 1990 are in accord with the terms of the
P.N.R. in relation to the reduction in working hours, and in the
circumstances which prevail in this employment no payment of
compensation is warranted. The Court therefore recommends
acceptance of the terms referred to above, as full settlement of
the claim for the introduction of the 39 hour week.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90721 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13176
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NOKIA LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Introduction of a thirty-nine hour working week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has two manufacturing plants, one in Waterford and
one in Dublin. Agreement on the implementation of a thirty-nine
hour week in Waterford was reached during 1990. On 14th March,
1990 the Company put forward proposals for the reduction in the
working week in Dublin. These also dealt with changes in the
present break system and provided for continuous production
between shifts. Agreement could not be reached at local level and
on 8th October, 1990 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 22nd November, 1990 arising out of which the Industrial
Relations Officer put forward draft proposals for discussion, (see
Appendix A). A further conciliation conference was held on 7th
December, 1990. The Union's position was that a lump sum of #200
should also be paid to each worker in respect of a loss of a 5
minutes washing up time at the end of each day, however, this was
rejected by management. No further progress could be made and on
11th December, 1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 11th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The terms of item 5 of the I.R.O.'s letter of 29th
November, 1990 mean that the workers would be expected to work
an extra 5 minutes per day (25 minutes per week) in return for
a reduction in the weekly working hours by one, but without
any financial compensation. Although a request was made at
conciliation for compensation of #200 of staff sales to each
worker, this was rejected by management. Apparently, the
Company interprets the provisions of the P.N.R. as suggesting
that workers should contribute towards offsetting the cost of
the introduction of a 39 hour week.
2. The Union is aware of the criteria for negotiating the
reduction in working hours and is quite willing to take these
into account. However, it is unreasonable to expect the
workers to concede back to the Company time in terms of meal
and rest breaks which were agreed locally and which have been
operating by tradition and practice in the Company. As the
Company is involved in the manufacture of facial tissues,
there is an accumulation of paper dust. This work environment
is an important reason in the workers' resistance to conceding
break time back to the Company as a quid pro quo for the
reduction by one hour in the working week.
3. The number of breaks and their duration which have existed
in the Company should continue to apply. If the Company does
seek to offset the cost of the introduction of the 39 hour
week, they should be prepared to pay compensation for the
loss of the 25 minutes to the workers involved. The Court
should also recommend that any other outstanding issues and
problems should be dealt with in direct negotiations at local
level.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The trading position of the Company has been extremely
difficult during 1990 and there has been a total review of the
Company in order to enable it to get back to profitability in
1991. In March, 1990 the Company put forward proposals for
implementing the 39 hour week which were based on an absolute
need to increase efficiency and reduce the impact of the
shorter working week (details supplied the Court). Although a
number of meetings took place on the issue, no significant
progress was made. It is management's view that this was due
to the fact that the workers would not accept the principle of
the framework agreement and were unwilling to accept any
changes to reduce the impact of the shorter working week.
2. The Company had a number of concerns about the I.R.O.'s
written proposal. These were that a total of 70 minutes
formal break-time was proposed for shift workers as compared
to a norm of 50-60 minutes and that breaks for day workers
would be 45 minutes compared to a norm of 30 minutes.
However, the proposal tackled one of the main issues of
keeping machines running between shifts and in a final effort
to reach agreement, management indicated its willingness to
accept these proposals as a total package.
3. The Company is totally committed to implementation of 39
hour week in the Dublin plant as it has done in the Waterford
plant, as long as the Company is allowed to run the plant on
an equal competitive basis to our competitors and sister
plants. To maintain competitiveness requires working time and
cost cutting measures to offset the effect of the one hour
reduction. The proposal of the I.R.O. will still leave the
plant with the higher break time than normal, however, it will
at least allow some offsetting to be done and is a minimum
requirement for agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is of the opinion that the terms set out in the I.R.O.'s letter
of the 29th November, 1990 are in accord with the terms of the
P.N.R. in relation to the reduction in working hours, and in the
circumstances which prevail in this employment no payment of
compensation is warranted. The Court therefore recommends
acceptance of the terms referred to above, as full settlement of
the claim for the introduction of the 39 hour week.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
30th January, 1991. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.
APPENDIX A
I.R.O.'S LETTER OF 29TH NOVEMBER, 1990
Re: 39 hour week
Further to the conciliation conference held on 22nd November, 1990
I enclose herewith draft proposals for discussion at the resumed
conciliation conference on 7th December, 1990 in the Labour Court
at 10.30 am:
(1) The 39 hour week will be implemented by way of payment of the
40th hour at overtime rates commencing in the week following
acceptance of these proposals for all shift employees.
Payment of the 40th hour is a temporary arrangement to operate
for 6 months in order to ease the Company's supply
difficulties. Upon expiry of the 6 months 1 hour off will be
effected at the end of each shift on Friday.
(2) For Day workers the 39 hour week will be implemented as
follows:
Facial Tissue will finish at 15.45 each Friday
Distribution will discuss a 16.33 finish each day.
(3) Breaks:
The following arrangements will apply upon acceptance of these
proposals.
(A) Paper Factory:
The sides will agree arrangements for 3 breaks totalling 70
minutes per day.
(B) Facial Tissue:
The sides will agree arrangements for 2 breaks totalling 45
minutes.
(C) Distribution:
The sides will agree arrangements for 2 breaks totalling 45
minutes.
(D) Raw Materials Storage:
Present breaks will change to 3 breaks totalling 60 minutes.
(4) Continuous Production on Shift Work:
Each operator will rotate daily so that production continues
between shifts. One operator will always remain at his
machine until an operator from the next shift arrives to take
over.
(5) Day Work:
Day workers will continue working up to 5 minutes before the
end of the day (16.45) and will not clock out before 16.45.