Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91204 Case Number: LCR13322 Section / Act: S67 Parties: QUEALLY PIG SLAUGHTERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of the 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the proposals arrived at
conciliation are fair in the circumstances and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly recommends that they be implemented with
effect from 1/1/91.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91204 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13322
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: QUEALLY PIG SLAUGHTERING LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of the 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a pigmeat processing plant and employs
119 workers. The Company is export orientated and has Japan and
European Community Countries as its main markets. The Union
entered a claim for the "39 hour week" in February, 1990 and after
some progress was made locally, the matter was referred to the
Conciliation Service on 10th October, 1990. A conciliation
conference was held on 10th January, 1991 and the following
proposal emerged at conciliation which was recommended for
acceptance by both sides:-
"(1) The 39 hour week will apply in the company from 1st
January, 1991.
(2) The one hour reduction in the working day will be on
a Wednesday. However where a Bank Holiday falls on
a Monday the shorter working day will be transferred
to a Thursday. Should any other circumstances arise
which would require a transfer of the shorter
working day, management will discuss the situation
in advance with the trade union.
(3) The morning rest break of 5 minutes will be
transferred to the afternoon rest break to make a
single rest break of 10 minutes.
(4) Save on the shorter working day, the amalgamated
rest break of 10 minutes will run from 3.00 p.m. to
3.10 p.m. in the afternoon.
(5) On the shorter working day, the amalgamated rest
break will be combined with the one-hour reduction
in the working day to give a finishing time of 3.20
p.m.
(6) If overtime should arise on the shorter working day
it will be paid from 3.30 p.m.
(7) Overtime will apply from the 40th hour based on the
new hourly rate.
(8) All other start and finish times and the duration of
the tea and lunch breaks remain unchanged."
The proposals were rejected by the workers. The contentious issue
being the proposed amalgamation of the morning five (5) minute tea
break with the afternoon five (5) minute tea break. There were to
be no other changes in working conditions. The sides requested
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The case was referred on 15th April, 1991 and a Labour Court
investigation took place in Waterford on 22nd May, 1991.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The only contentious issue in the set of proposals
arrived at by conciliation was the amalgamation of the morning
and afternoon tea breaks. Although the Company operates a
flexible day from 7.00 a.m., the working day normally
commences at 8.00 a.m. and finishes at 4.30 p.m. There is a
15 minute tea break at 9.30 a.m., a five (5) minute tea break
at 11.30 a.m., 30 minute lunch break starting at 12.45 p.m.
and a five (5) minute tea break at 3.00 p.m.
2. The workers have enjoyed these breaks since the
commencement of their employment and do not want them
interfered with in any way. The nature of work carried out
means that workers pace themselves from break to break and
know exactly what standards they have to maintain to meet the
Company's requirements and to achieve the targets for their
production bonus each day. The Union asked the Company to
introduce the "39 hour week" without interference with the
breaks for a three (3) month trial period. The Company felt
they could not accede to this request.
3. The Programme for National Recovery (PNR) expired for
the workers on 31st December, 1990 and they are anxious to
resolve the matter quickly. The workers are anxious that the
introduction of the "39 hour week" should not interfere with
present working conditions. The workers are aware that the
majority of workers in other places of employment have enjoyed
the benefit of the "39 hour week" for some time. Workers in
other employments did not have to make concessions on
conditions on the introduction of the "39 hour week".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company have made concessions to the Union since
negotiations began on the "39 hour week". The proposals put
by the Conciliation Officer and recommended for acceptance by
the Union represent the Company's bottom line in this regard.
The "39 hour week" is being conceded without any "claw back"
of the costs involved. All that is being requested is the
amalgamation of the morning and afternoon tea breaks.
2. The rest breaks as currently structured do not fit in
with emerging production practices in the industry. Trends
and developments in quality and hygiene must also be taken
into account. For instance, the ISO 9000 will demand the
complete closedown of work stations and equipment and as such
will militate against short rest breaks, as will the ongoing
development of hygiene requirements in the industry.
3. The Company is conscious of the employee's need to have
adequate breaks and argues that a 15 minute morning break and
a 10 minute afternoon break compares more than favourably with
the general pattern of industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the proposals arrived at
conciliation are fair in the circumstances and should be accepted.
The Court accordingly recommends that they be implemented with
effect from 1/1/91.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
18th June, 1991 -------------
J.F/U.S. Deputy Chairman