Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90714 Case Number: LCR13236 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MUNSTER UNITED MERCHANTS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the method of implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
The Court having regard to the pattern of working hours and the
manner in which the bonus structures are operated, finds that the
most equitable way of dealing with the claim is in accordance with
the offer of the Company.
The Court view is on the clear understanding that implementation
of this proposal will not result in any loss of earnings to the
workers concerned.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90714 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13236
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: MUNSTER UNITED MERCHANTS
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the method of implementation of a 39 hour
week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholesale grocery outlet and is part of a
group of companies with distribution centres in Cork, Dublin,
Limerick, Galway and Ballyshannon. There are 6 indoor workers and
6 outdoor delivery workers (3 drivers and 3 helpers) employed in
Cork. In 1989 the Company changed its salary payment structure
from a system based on a 40 hour week plus bonus earned plus
overtime to a "task and finish" system. For the 6 indoor staff,
who clock on and off, this means that they are paid on a "pooled"
basis. Each item of work is given a standard minute value which
when multiplied by the volume of work done results in a "pool" of
allowed hours which in turn is multiplied by a minimum bonus rate
of #5.82. The resultant "pool" of money is then divided by the
total hours worked and paid accordingly to each worker. The
salary payments to the 6 outdoor delivery workers (who do not
clock on and off) is based on mileage and the amount of deliveries
made. The number of hours worked is used to apportion the "pool"
of earnings between the workers concerned. Under the "task and
finish" system both categories of workers may go home when the
work available has been processed. The concept of a 40 hour week
is used only to calculate basic hourly rates.
3. The Union claims that the 39 hour week as provided for under
the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) should
be implemented by way of accrued annual leave for both categories
of worker employed at Cork. The Company claims that an increase
in pay in lieu of time off is the most practical method of
implementation in a "task and finish" system. No agreement was
reached at local level and the matter was referred on 14th
November, 1990 to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 29th November, 1990 at which
no agreement was reached. Both parties requested a full Labour
Court hearing and the dispute was referred on 29th November, 1990
to the Labour Court for investigation. The hearing took place in
Cork on 13th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The P.N.R. provides for a reduction in the working week
as a means of expanding employment and increasing the amount
of leisure time available to workers. The Company's proposal
of payment in lieu of time off provides no real benefit to
the workers concerned. It does not fulfill the objectives
and spirit of the P.N.R., i.e. to reduce working hours.
2. It is practical for the Company to implement the reduced
working week in the form of accrued annual leave. The
Company initially offered accumulated time off to indoor
staff to be taken on Fridays only, except during the months
of June, July and August. The Company withdrew this offer
before the Union had the opportunity to respond. Other local
companies in the same business have already implemented the
39 hour week on an accrued annual leave basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The P.N.R. provides for the negotiation at local level
of arrangements for the implementation of a reduction in the
working week. It does not give an automatic entitlement of
time off to workers. Arrangements must be negotiated to
allow for an agreed implementation of the reduced working
week at individual company level.
2. The "task and finish" system has effectively eliminated
the concept of a 40 hour week for the workers employed in the
Company, except that it is used as a reference point to
calculate the basic hourly rates of pay. It is therefore
difficult to implement the terms of the P.N.R. by way of
reduced working time. The Company's proposal to increase
payment in lieu of time off is the most practical solution.
3. The nature of the "task and finish" system is that
workers can finish when the available work is processed.
This means that workers already benefit from reduced working
hours. During the period between January, 1990 and December,
1990 indoor workers have worked an average of 38.95 hours per
week with an average attendance of 5.29 workers per week. If
the full compliment of 6 indoor workers had been on duty, for
the same total number of hours over the same period, each
worker would have only worked an average of 34.35 hours per
week. This demonstrates that the indoor workers already have
sufficient time off and should accept an increase in the
"pool" of 2.50%.
4. The pay of the outdoor staff is based solely on miles
travelled and packs delivered and the number of hours worked
is used solely to apportion the pool of earnings between the
drivers. Helpers receive the equivalent of 90% of the
drivers earnings. The Company's proposal to increase the
basic weekly bonus rate by dividing the current weekly rate
by 39 instead of 40,thus bringing the rate from #4.14 to
#4.25, is the most practical solution in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having regard to the pattern of working hours and the
manner in which the bonus structures are operated, finds that the
most equitable way of dealing with the claim is in accordance with
the offer of the Company.
The Court view is on the clear understanding that implementation
of this proposal will not result in any loss of earnings to the
workers concerned.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman