Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9142 Case Number: LCR13315 Section / Act: S67 Parties: STUDIO EYEWEAR LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39-hour week in respect of three workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is of the opinion that, for reasons related entirely to the
organisation of work at the plant, the Company's offer of the 29th
June, 1990 should be accepted as the means of effecting the agreed
reduction in hours of work.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9142 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13315
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: STUDIO EYEWEAR LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39-hour week in
respect of three workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures spectacle frames and is based at
Ennis, Co. Clare. It employs 140 workers, the majority of whom
are represented by S.I.P.T.U. N.E.E.T.U. represents five workers
including the three workers here concerned who are employed as
toolmakers in the toolroom area. At a meeting with the Company in
March 1989 to discuss a reduction in the working week as provided
for under the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) the Union
claimed a one-hour reduction on Friday afternoons as from 1st
June, 1989. The Company proposed to reduce working time by half
an hour from September 1989 and a further half hour from June
1990; this was rejected by the Union and also by S.I.P.T.U.
Following further discussions the Company by letter dated 29 June,
1990 (details supplied to the Court) offered time off in lieu i.e.
five days per year plus an additional day for employees joining
Paypath. This offer had already been accepted by S.I.P.T.U. and
was offered to the Union concerned but was rejected. The issue
could not be resolved at local level discussions and was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 18th
October, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 8th
November, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 15th January, 1991. A Court
hearing was held in Limerick on the 15th May, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under Clause 6 of the proposals of the P.N.R. dealing
with working hours it is clearly written that the working
week be reduced by one hour. Clauses 7 and 8 are but
arrangements to reach this goal.
2. The shorter working week is part of an agreement whereby
the Unions were asked and agreed to wage restraints for a
period of three years. When put to ballot in 1987 no mention
of productivity was made by either Unions or Management.
3. During the lifetime of the P.N.R. two jobs were lost in
the maintenance department; this occurred when the private
sector was supposed to create jobs. The toolroom at Studio
Eyewear is now down to three maintenance technicians.
4. This Union has always negotiated separately with the
Company and has had agreements which differ from those
reached with the other categories of workers within the
Company.
5. Nationally statistics indicate that 82% of agreements on
the shorter working week are for the last hour off. The
remaining 18% take into account continuous shifts, seasonal
work etc.
6. This Union has negotiated agreements with other
companies for the last hour off where the Unions catering for
other categories of workers have opted for deals similar to
that accepted by S.I.P.T.U. at Studio Eyewear (details
supplied to the Court).
7. Management during protracted negotiations have changed
their position on at least three occasions. Firstly they
offered the shorter working week without strings, on a phased
basis; then they introduced Paypath. They then sought
changes on break times and eventually produced proposals
which are at total variance with all that the P.N.R.
envisaged.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has long recognised the separate identities
of the two unions with members at the plant. In practice,
however, an agreement with one Union must in many instances
have implications for the other.
2. In this particular case it is clearly impractical to
have an agreement with S.I.P.T.U. based on accumulated time
off and an alternative agreement with N.E.E.T.U. based on
early finishing on Fridays. The Company therefore has no
option but to pursue an agreement with N.E.E.T.U. similar to
the agreement with S.I.P.T.U.
3. The agreement with S.I.P.T.U., is an attractive one for
workers, involving up to 6 days additional leave per annum.
This offer has been made to this Union and it meets all
Management's obligation under the P.N.R.
4. The toolmakers' main function is to support production
at the plant by maintaining and repairing tools and
equipment. It is not possible to predict when the services
of the workers concerned will be most required. Allowing
them to leave the plant at 3.30 p.m. on Fridays would
inevitably lead to a situation where additional costs to the
Company would arise, through overtime. The Company is
operating in a very competitive market and cannot afford such
additional costs.
5. The Company also has a difficulty with the possibility
of two separate arrangements being implemented for N.E.E.T.U.
members at the plant. The foreman and supervisor in the tool
room area are already working on the same terms as their
S.I.P.T.U. counterparts. In the Company's view a different
arrangement with the other three N.E.E.T.U. members would not
be in the interests of any of the parties.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is of the opinion that, for reasons related entirely to the
organisation of work at the plant, the Company's offer of the 29th
June, 1990 should be accepted as the means of effecting the agreed
reduction in hours of work.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th June, 1991 John O'Connell
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman