Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD919 Case Number: LCR13199 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH COUNTRY MEATS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 330 workers concerning the introduction of the 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. Because of the imminence of the introduction of the new plant
and the necessity which it will involve to establish new
standards, the Court does not consider that it is appropriate in
an industrial relations sense for the Company to seek adjustments
in break-times or output in the existing plant in return for the
introduction of the 39 hour week.
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is mindful of the need
for genuine and full co-operation by the workforce in all the
requirements in the new plant including work-practices, hygiene
and output.
The Court therefore recommends that the 39 hour week be introduced
by the Company with effect from 1st April, 1991 - the details of
its application to be negotiated by the parties in the interim.
The Court also recommends full co-operation by the work-force with
the transfer to the new plant and in the event of any issue
including production levels, being disputed, that the management
decisions concerning them be accepted, if necessary under protest,
pending resolution through the disputes procedure.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD919 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13199
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH COUNTRY MEATS
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 330 workers
concerning the introduction of the 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 8th May, 1990, the Union submitted a claim for the
introduction of the 39 hour week. The Union indicated that the
preferred method for the reduction in the normal working week was
accumulated time off. The Company indicated that it would have to
be achieved on a self financing basis and would have effect from
1st July, 1991, which is the expiry date of the Programme for
National Recovery in the Company. Local discussions took place in
June and July, 1990, but agreement could not be reached. On 17th
July, 1990, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference, held on 20th
September, 1990, was adjourned to allow the Company formulate
proposals on the reduced working week. On 2nd October, 1990, the
Company put forward proposals on the basis of 6 (six) days accrued
time-off per annum with effect from 1st July, 1991. The offer was
conditional on co-operation being given with change when
production is transferred to a new plant; a 1% increase in
production; that overtime be payed from the 41st hour at a rate of
1/40th of basic rate; the reduction of the morning tea break by 5
minutes and elimination of 5 minute washing up time. At a further
conciliation conference on 9th October, 1990, the Union rejected
the Company's proposals and stated that it wished to consider its
position further in consultation with the Union's industrial
engineer. At a third conciliation conference held on 26th
November, 1990, the Union said that its industrial engineer
confirmed that there was no scope for an increase in production
levels nor justification for a reduction in breaks. The Union
felt that concessions previously made were sufficient to finance
the reduction in the normal hours worked. As no agreement was
possible the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 29th
November, 1990, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 6th February, 1991, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the course of a Labour Court hearing in 1989,
concerning rationalisation in the Company, it was argued that
because of the early start from home of some of the workers
the 20 minute break in the morning was necessary to allow
these workers have a reasonable meal break. As the Labour
Court recommended a break of 20 minutes, it can be assumed
that the Court agreed with the argument. (L.C.R.12544 refers).
The same argument still holds. The same also applies to the 5
minutes wash up time. The Company in seeking a change in the
breaks is attempting a second 'bite of the cherry' as the
Court rejected similar changes in 1989. The breaks currently
enjoyed are broadly in line with the Company's main
competitors.
2. To base the hourly rate for overtime purposes on
anything other than the standard working week which would be
39 hours would be an unusual and unprecedented method of
establishing hourly pay. Overtime should be paid in the 41st
hour at 1/39 of basic wages plus the overtime rate.
3. If the production targets are increased they may prove
too difficult to achieve and the incentive to achieve them
could be lost. The Union does not see any justification for a
1% increase in production levels. The standard times are
clearly accurate without any "fat" in them. Notwithstanding
the modest wage increases under the P.N.R. the workers have
already given substantial productivity increases in 1989. In
some cases this productivity was as high as 23%. The workers
concerned have already handsomely paid for the reduction in
the working week following their acceptance of LCR12544.
4. Deferring the date of introduction of the 39 hour week
is unfair and out of line with the majority of other
settlements, both locally and nationally. It would be more
reasonable to have an introduction date of half way through
the P.N.R. which in this case would be 1st January, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's proposals have been put forward against a
very difficult trading position. In 1989, the Company lost
almost #1 million. The history of the Company has been one of
closures and rationalisation. The Company was taken over by
Avonmore in July, 1989, and an investment expansion programme
is being implemented. The Union side appears to believe that
Avonmore can endlessly fund the Company. This is not the
case. The Company must finance itself and perform as a
stand-alone operation.
2. Transfer to a new plant is already underway. That is
why the Company has sought full co-operation with new work
practices and production standards. Past experiences with
co-operation on new standards/practices have not been good.
3. The Company has sought to reduce the excessive number of
breaks in the plant. At present the staff have paid breaks
amounting to 35 minutes per day. The average within the
industry is 20-25 minutes. The Company seeks to reduce the
breaks by 10 minutes to off-set the cost of the reduction in
working hours. Similarly, an increase in production levels is
required to off-set the cost of implementing the reduction in
hours of work. The concessions being sought are in keeping
with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on Hours of Work.
4. The Company has always indicated that their proposals
are negotiable, but the Union has not been prepared to
negotiate on any of them. The Union does not appear to accept
that the Company is in a very competitive market and must look
at its overheads all the time. The Company is not in a
position to implement the reduction without some concessions
to help off-set the costs.
5. The Company originally proposed 6 days extra leave on an
accrued working time basis. Since the last conciliation
conference, the Company has done a full analysis of its extra
leave option and has concluded that it is far too costly given
the need for extra cover for the extra leave. As a result the
Company is not now prepared to put forward this option but
would look at some other, such as 5 equal days production e.g.
finishing 15 minutes earlier each day (75 minutes), less 3
minutes in the break time (15 minutes), giving a net weekly
reduction of one hour. The Union has said that they are
flexible on the method of introduction so this could be dealt
with again at local level.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Because of the imminence of the introduction of the new plant
and the necessity which it will involve to establish new
standards, the Court does not consider that it is appropriate in
an industrial relations sense for the Company to seek adjustments
in break-times or output in the existing plant in return for the
introduction of the 39 hour week.
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is mindful of the need
for genuine and full co-operation by the workforce in all the
requirements in the new plant including work-practices, hygiene
and output.
The Court therefore recommends that the 39 hour week be introduced
by the Company with effect from 1st April, 1991 - the details of
its application to be negotiated by the parties in the interim.
The Court also recommends full co-operation by the work-force with
the transfer to the new plant and in the event of any issue
including production levels, being disputed, that the management
decisions concerning them be accepted, if necessary under protest,
pending resolution through the disputes procedure.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
27th February, 1991 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman