Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91414 Case Number: LCR13402 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS;CIE TRADE UNION GROUP;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues which arise from the claim for the reduction
of hours in the Company. Whilst the Court is aware of and
acknowledges the very serious financial plight of the Company, it
is of the opinion that proposals to modify even for a fixed
duration, the impact of the reduction of hours on the means of
calculation of overtime, on overtime arrangements themselves, are
not within the spirit of the relevant terms of the P.N.R.
For this reason the Court does not consider that the Company's
proposal to modify the overtime divisor, or amend the payment for
the first hour of overtime should be attached as conditions to the
offer of a reduction of hours.
On the other hand the Company is clearly entitled under the same
terms to (a) minimise any adverse effects on costs and employment
arising from the hours reduction and (b) to achieve the objective
of the Framework Agreement that the reduction in working hours
(time) be effected without recourse to overtime working.
The Court notes that local discussions are continuing to arrive at
agreements on this issue which are relevant to the particular
working groups within the organisation. It further notes that
difficulties arise for both parties concerning the fixing of a
date of implementation . In order to assist the resolution of the
problem the Court recommends as follows:
(a) that all sections of the pay roll who have agreed on means of
implementation should have the reduction in hours introduced with
effect from 1st July, 1991.
(b) that all sections who reach agreement on the means of
implementation within three weeks of the date of issue of this
recommendation should have the terms implemented from the same
date.
(c) in sections where the parties are unable to reach agreement
within the above terms the Court recommends that the issue of an
implementation date be the subject of a further supplementary
recommendation when the Court will recommend a date having regard
to the circumstances which give rise to the delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91414 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13402
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
AND
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS
(CIE TRADE UNION GROUP)
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 4,900 engineering, rail
and road operatives employed by the Company. Since February 1989
the Unions have been seeking to negotiate the introduction of a 39
hour week on behalf of the workers concerned, as provided for
under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
The Company has delayed implementing the reduction of one hour
on the grounds of financial difficulties in meeting the pay terms
of the P.N.R. Following a number of meetings at local level at
which no agreement was reached, the issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 12th September,
1990. Conciliation conferences were held on the 28th January and
12th February, 1991. Following the conciliation conference of
12th February, 1991 the Company, in a letter to the Unions dated
13th February,1991, outlined its proposals for the introduction of
a 39 hour week (Appendix A refers). The proposals were not
acceptable to the Unions specifically in relation to:
(a) the divisor for calculation of the hourly rate (one
thirty-ninth or one fortieth),
(b) the overtime rate for the first hour (between 39 and 40
hours),
(c) the implementation date.
A further conciliation conference which was held on the 15th
April, 1991 failed to resolve the issue. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 8th August, 1991. A Court
hearing was held on the 20th August, 1991.
I.C.T.U. GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At a meeting between the parties which was held in
December, 1990 the Unions made their claim for the
implementation of the shorter working week, seeking an
implementation date of 1st September, 1990, in line with
employees in the State sector. The Unions argued that the
reduction should be seen as a clear reduction and therefore
should be the last hour of the normal working week. The
issues raised included the effect of the change on the hourly
rate, overtime payments and the calculation of holiday
entitlements.
2. At subsequent meetings and conciliation conferences the
Unions have endeavoured at all times to facilitate the
Company with regard to a date of implementation of the 39
hour week. The Company stated that if agreement on rosters
could be reached with various groups at local level the
reduced working week would be introduced from 1st July, 1991.
If any group failed to agree, the reduced working week would
be introduced from 2nd September, 1991.
3. The Unions by letter of 4th March, 1991 stated that they
were prepared to look favourably on the proposed
implementation date of 1st July, 1991 providing that a
positive response is made by Irish Rail to the following
points:
(i) Implementation date to be the 1st September, 1990.
(ii) Where possible, the hour off to be at the end of each
working week.
(iii) Where people on shift working are involved the extra
hour per week to be accumulated and given as an extra
day off incorporated into shift or rostering
arrangements.
(iv) The new hourly rate to be increased immediately to
1/39th of the presently weekly rate.
(v) Immediate negotiations to commence at local level in
each of the Companies on the method of application of
new working hours in the respective locations.
4. The Company did not respond positively to the Unions'
requests on these points, and the Unions are now seeking
that: the shorter working week be implemented from 1st
September, 1990 in accordance with the terms of the P.N.R. ,
the new hourly rate be increased to 1/39th of the rates
applicable since 1st September, 1990, the new hourly rate be
taken into the calculation for all overtime hours worked, and
the calculation for entitlement to holidays be adjusted to
take account of the shorter working week.
5. The Unions base their claim on the fact that the Company
implemented the P.N.R. in accordance with the Public sector
agreement and would draw the Court's attention to the
arguments made by the Unions in Labour Court Recommendation
13188 concerning workers employed by the Commissioners of
Irish Lights. (Details supplied to the Court).
N.B.R.U.'s ARGUMENTS:
1. This dispute centres particularly on two areas of the
Company's proposals: the method of application and the hourly
rate in the 39 hour situation.
2. The Company, in a letter to the Unions dated 8th
January, 1991 (details supplied to the Court), stated "With
the implementation of the 39 hour week the Company is
prepared to agree that the hourly rate will be 1/39th of the
basic rate". Subsequently this offer was withdrawn and new
proposals were outlined in the Company's letter of the 13th
February, 1991. These would in fact worsen the situation for
the workers concerned.
3. The Company's proposal to defer the full financial
benefits of the 39 hour week until the 3rd year of its
operation is not acceptable to the Union. When the working
week is reduced the hourly rate must be increased at that
time. The new rate to operate at the commencement of
implementation of the 39 hour week must be 1/39th of the
basic rate.
4. With regard to the method of application of the 39 hour
week, the Union is aware from meetings held at local level,
that the Company has rejected different suggestions made by
the workers concerned, which include the accumulation of time
in lieu of payment resulting in additional rest days, or
additional annual leave and the reduction in the working day.
5. The introduction of the 39 hour week was supposed to
benefit the workers concerned. If the Company's proposals
were to be accepted by the Union they would have the effect
of diminishing the benefits to the workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is experiencing severe financial
difficulties (details supplied to the Court) and must
consider the implementation of the 39 hour week in the
context of this financial situation. The cost implications
of introducing a 39 hour week against this backdrop has posed
serious problems. The Company operates services over 24
hours, 7 days a week. The pattern of work of the employees
concerned varies widely between the different categories of
staff and embraces regular rosters, two cycle and three cycle
shift, irregular rotating shifts, night work, etc. It is
estimated that a 39 hour week without alleviation would cost
up to £2.5m million extra per annum. The Company does not
have the resources to meet this expenditure.
2. From the beginning of negotiations the Company has
emphasised, in the light of its financial situation, that
there must be adherence to the criteria for negotiating the
reduced working week which are set out in Paragraph 4 of the
P.N.R. relating to the costs involved, flexibility,
competitiveness and the efficient use of human resources,
plant, machinery, etc. These criteria should be utilised so
as to minimise any adverse effects on costs and employment.
3. In its proposals of 13th February, 1991 the Company has
indicated that it is prepared to concede the Union's demands
with regard to the divisor, and also payment for the first
hour of overtime. The Company, however, has sought that
these be phased in. This is fully in accordance with the
Framework Agreement on Hours of Work and is essential
particularly when taken in the context of the Company's
financial situation.
4. With regard to the issue of the implementation date, the
Company is, through local negotiations, in the process of
securing agreement on the method of implementation in respect
of staff in various departments including some groups of rail
operatives. However, at some locations the Unions are
insisting that the reduction of one hour per week must be
given as an early finish on one day, or else accumulated and
given in the form of accrued annual leave. The Company
cannot accept either of these positions.
5. The Company's proposals of 13th February, 1991 are fair
and reasonable. It is prepared to implement the reduced
working week before the end of the third year of the P.N.R.
in accordance with the Framework Agreement, having regard to
the costs involved. This principle has been endorsed by the
Labour Court and the Company, in the context of its acute
financial position, must have regard to it if a 39 hour week
is to be implemented. The Company must have flexibility to
prepare rosters to meet operating requirements and to
minimise costs. Agreement should therefore be forthcoming on
this basis to allow the introduction of the 39 hour week for
all categories of staff involved before the 30th September,
1991. For those sections of staff where it is not possible
to reach agreement by that date, the 39 hour week
arrangements can only be implemented with effect from the
date agreement is reached.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
on the various issues which arise from the claim for the reduction
of hours in the Company. Whilst the Court is aware of and
acknowledges the very serious financial plight of the Company, it
is of the opinion that proposals to modify even for a fixed
duration, the impact of the reduction of hours on the means of
calculation of overtime, on overtime arrangements themselves, are
not within the spirit of the relevant terms of the P.N.R.
For this reason the Court does not consider that the Company's
proposal to modify the overtime divisor, or amend the payment for
the first hour of overtime should be attached as conditions to the
offer of a reduction of hours.
On the other hand the Company is clearly entitled under the same
terms to (a) minimise any adverse effects on costs and employment
arising from the hours reduction and (b) to achieve the objective
of the Framework Agreement that the reduction in working hours
(time) be effected without recourse to overtime working.
The Court notes that local discussions are continuing to arrive at
agreements on this issue which are relevant to the particular
working groups within the organisation. It further notes that
difficulties arise for both parties concerning the fixing of a
date of implementation . In order to assist the resolution of the
problem the Court recommends as follows:
(a) that all sections of the pay roll who have agreed on means of
implementation should have the reduction in hours introduced with
effect from 1st July, 1991.
(b) that all sections who reach agreement on the means of
implementation within three weeks of the date of issue of this
recommendation should have the terms implemented from the same
date.
(c) in sections where the parties are unable to reach agreement
within the above terms the Court recommends that the issue of an
implementation date be the subject of a further supplementary
recommendation when the Court will recommend a date having regard
to the circumstances which give rise to the delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th September, 1991 John O'Connell
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman.
APPENDIX A
PROGRAMME FOR NATIONAL RECOVERY : REDUCTION IN WORKING HOURS.
I refer to Conciliation Conference held at the Labour Relations
Commission on 12th February.
Taking account of the deteriorating financial position as outlined
by the Managing Director at the meeting with the trade unions in
Connolly on 5th February, the Company is prepared to commence
immediate negotiations at local level on the introduction of a
39-hour week on the following basis -
- Staff will be grouped in 5 sections i.e.
1. Rail Operations
2. Road Freight
3. Chief Mechanical Engineer's
4. Chief Civil Engineer's
5. Catering.
Supervisors are included in each section.
- the 39-hour week will be introduced on 1st July, 1991 in
respect of each section of staff where agreement has been
reached on all issues for the entire section before that
date;
- the reduced working week will be introduced from 2nd
September, 1991 in respect of any section of staff where
agreement has not been concluded on all issues by 1st
July, 1991. Should however agreement be reached for any
complete section of employees between 1st July and 2nd
September, 1991, the 39-hour week will be implemented from
the commencement of the next working week following
agreement;
- the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission/Labour
Court shall be sought if necessary;
- the existing hourly rate of 1/40th of basic rate shall
continue to apply following date of introduction and
overtime for the first hour shall be paid at flat time
(existing premium payments where applicable for night
duty, Saturday afternoon and shift will, of course,
apply). After one year from date of introduction the
overtime rate for the first hour will become time plus one
half (again where applicable existing premium payments for
night duty, Saturday afternoon and shift will apply).
After two years from date of introduction the hourly rate
will become 1/39th of basic rate. During the phasing in
period there will be no change in the existing payment for
rest day, Sunday, and public holidays.
As previously stated the Company proposed to introduce the 39-hour
week in accordance with the criteria set out in the "Framework
Agreement on Hours of Work" as ratified by F.I.E. and I.C.T.U. In
this regard the Company must give particular attention to the
coasts involved and the effects on viability and employment. In
the Company's view the following methods of implementation are the
most appropriate having regard to the nature of operations and the
necessity for cost effectiveness -
(a) 10/12 minutes reduction in each working day:
(b) reduction over a number of days in week:
(c) reduction of one hour on one day per week:
(d) extension of meal breaks by 10/12 minutes per day:
(e) adjustment of working hours on a seasonal basis.
The negotiations at local level will deal with the efficient use
of staff and equipment so as to minimize any adverse effects on
costs. In these local negotiations cognisance shall have to be
taken of the factors outlined in Paragraph 4 of the Frame work
Agreement i.e. -
"the cost involved
the implications for competitiveness
the need for flexibility
the effect on production and services
the effect on jobs
the exigencies of the work involved."
On hearing from you that the foregoing is acceptable, the
necessary steps will be taken to initiate local discussions.