Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91246 Case Number: LCR13429 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SABLE OUTERWEAR LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking
into account not only the conditions which pertain in the industry
generally but also the manner in which working hours were
established in this Company the Court recommends that the
following hours of work should be agreed between the parties.
(a) Monday to Thursday 8.30 to 5.
Friday 8.30 to 4.
The existing tea breaks to be retained with the exception of the
afternoon tea break on Friday which should be eliminated.
The Court further recommends that the above apply retrospectively
to 1/6/1990.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91246 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13429
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)(a)(b) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: SABLE OUTERWEAR LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company opened its factory at Thurles in November, 1989.
It employs 46 people in the production of shirts. The major part
of which is sold on the home market. It also had a related
company in Miltown Malby, Co Clare which employed 40 people from
November, 1987 to December, 1990.
3. The workers joined the Union in the summer of 1990. Under the
shirtmaking Joint Labour Committee an agreement was reached that
the 39 hour week should be implemented from 1st June, 1990. The
Union met with the Company in October, 1990 and proposed an early
finish on Fridays as the method for introducing the 39 hour week.
The Company's response was that, as the workers already had an
afternoon paid 10 minute tea-break and had a half hour on Fridays
to cash their cheques, they were actually working a 38 hour 40
minute week and the question of a 39 hour week did not arise. The
half hour allowed for cashing cheques was transferred from an
extended lunch break to an early finish (4.30 p.m.) on Fridays.
4. The Union rejected this position as the workers were being
paid an hourly rate of 1/40th. The Company maintained that this
was an error and introduced a 1/39th hourly rate retrospective to
February, 1990. The Company then proposed a 4.00 p.m. finish on
Fridays to be offset by a reduction in the afternoon tea-breaks.
This was rejected by the Union and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held
on 19th March, 1991. As no agreement was reached the Commission
considered the dispute and with the consent of the parties the
matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)(a)(b)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Thurles on 18th
September, 1991. (A date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 5. It is not the practice in industry to include tea-breaks
or rest periods when calculating the working week.
2. The 39 hour week has not been implemented as the
tea-breaks and bank time were introduced before the 39 hour
week came into effect.
3. The workers' hourly rate was, until recently, calculated
at 1/40th.
4. Given the method of operation and the high level of
co-operation and commitment of staff it is unlikely that
productivity will be adversely affected by the shorter day.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The present working week is less than 39 hours. These
arrangements were originally implemented in 1988 in the
Company's plant at Miltown Malby as a result of the Programme
for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and subsequently applied at
the Thurles plant when it opened in 1989.
2. The Company has adjusted the hourly rate to reflect the
39 hour week. The delay in implementing same was due to an
oversight.
3. The claim is outside the terms of the P.N.R. as the
workers already have a working week of less than 40 hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking
into account not only the conditions which pertain in the industry
generally but also the manner in which working hours were
established in this Company the Court recommends that the
following hours of work should be agreed between the parties.
(a) Monday to Thursday 8.30 to 5.
Friday 8.30 to 4.
The existing tea breaks to be retained with the exception of the
afternoon tea break on Friday which should be eliminated.
The Court further recommends that the above apply retrospectively
to 1/6/1990.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
----------------------
7th October, 1991
M.D./U.S. Deputy Chairman