Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90694 Case Number: LCR13152 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BOART EUROPE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL AND PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a reduced working week.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court,
taking all the arguments into account, recommends that the Union
accept the proposals of the Company as set out in Appendix 4,
Option A of their submission to the Court.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90694 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13152
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BOART EUROPE LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL AND PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a reduced working
week.
BACKGROUND:
2. Negotiations on the introduction of a shorter working week
commenced in October, 1989. The majority of the workers (shift
workers) are currently on a 37.5 hour week. The Company are
agreeable to reducing the working week by an hour for all workers.
Initially the Company, in order to minimize the costs involved,
sought a number of concessions or "trade off" items from the Union
in return for the introduction of a shorter week in addition to
revised shift rosters which would ensure continuity of production
in continuous processes, high technology facilities and bottleneck
areas. The Union refused to concede the "trade off" items but did
recognise that cover was needed in the areas mentioned.
3. Following a series of meetings the Company agreed to drop the
"trade off" items and put forward a proposal of a combination for
alternative shifts for 2 and 3 cycle shift workers and earlier
finishing time for day workers (details supplied to the Court).
The Union had no difficulty with the proposals for the day workers
or the 3 cycle shift workers. However, in the case of the 3 cycle
shift workers, they were given 2 choices of finishing times.
Option "A" provided a finishing time of 5 am and the Company
sought a guarantee that continuous cover would be provided on
certain processes by overtime up to 8 am (starting time of
following shift). Option "B" provided a combination of finishing
times of 5 am and 7 am with a normal commitment to overtime after
the shift. The Union stated that it was not possible to reach
agreement as long as the Company insisted on a guarantee for
overtime worked between 5 am and 8 am and in addition such
overtime should be paid at double time for the hours involved (The
Company's proposals provides that normal rate of T + .50 should
apply). Finishing time of 5 am was the preferred choice of the
workers concerned.
4. The issue was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 10 July, 1990. A conciliation conference was held
on 8 November, 1990. As no agreement was reached the parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Nenagh on 4 December,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers are not prepared to give the Company any
guarantee on the cover required from 5 am to 8 am on the
basis that in the Company's 29 years of operation the workers
have always been available to cover overtime when called on.
They consider that for the Company to seek such a guarantee
in these circumstances is a breach of their commitment to
cover ongoing overtime.
2. In view of the unsocial nature of the hours which are
required to be worked on overtime the Union considers that
the appropriate overtime rate payable is double time and asks
the Court to recommend accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company has made every effort to resolve the issue
since October, 1989. The Company has made many concessions
and taken on board proposals from the Union which were costly
to the Company. The Company must have a guarantee to cover
the hours 5 am to 8 am on overtime as it needs continuity of
production. In the absence of this guarantee the Company
cannot implement revised rosters for the shorter working
week.
2. The Company has reached a position whereby two
alternatives were put to the Union for consideration.
(Details supplied to the Court). The Court is asked to
recommend that the Union accept either one of the
alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court,
taking all the arguments into account, recommends that the Union
accept the proposals of the Company as set out in Appendix 4,
Option A of their submission to the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15 January, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman