Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91104 Case Number: LCR13525 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PACLENE COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions finds that there
is an obligation to implement the reduction in working time as
provided for in the Programme for National Recovery.
The Court considers that it was not the intention of the parties
to the P.N.R. that the reduction in working time be achieved by
means of an overtime payment. The agreement also made provision
for the parties having regard to the costs involved in the
reduction of working time.
In all the circumstances of this case it is the view of the
Court that arrangements should be made to implement the hour
reduction in working hours with immediate effect and that the
break time be reduced to 20 and 10 minutes as proposed by the
Company this reduction to apply up to 30 April, 1992 when the
matter will be reviewed.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91104 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13525
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PACLENE COMPANY 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, which is based in Ennis, is part of the
Smurfit Group and manufactures plastic packaging for the retail
trade. It employs approximately 65 people of whom 40 are shift
workers.
3. In early 1989 the Union sought a meeting with the Company
to discuss the implementation of a 39 hour week in accordance
with the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). The Company
responded by letter stating that it was committed to the terms
of the P.N.R. but it was not possible to introduce a 39 hour
week at that time due to trading difficulties.
4. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on 9th August 1990. A conciliation conference was held on 6th
September, 1990. At the conciliation conference, the Company
proposed introducing the 39 hour week by retaining the present
shift arrangements and paying the 40th hour at overtime rates.
In return the Company sought a reduction of 10 minutes in the 30
minute paid meal break. Day workers were to be facilitated by
an early finish on Fridays. This proposal was rejected by the
Union. The Union is seeking a reduction of one hour for all
workers without any conditions.
5. At a subsequent meeting at local level the Company
re-iterated its position but undertook to restore the 30 minute
break once it had returned to profitability and to review the
situation in April, 1992. This was also rejected by the
workers. The Commission, with the consent the parties, referred
the dispute under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990 to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on 12th
November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The P.N.R. has given the employers stability and low wage
increases over a long period of time with marginal
benefits for the workers with the exception of the 39 hour
week, the only real benefit to accrue to workers.
2. In most agreements concluded nationally, the 39 hour week
was implemented without concessions from the workers.
3. The Company's main competitor, which operates similar
shifts, breaks, etc., implemented the 39 hour week by
continuing to work a 40 hour week and granting leave in
lieu of the extra hour per week worked without concessions
from its workforce.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company has accepted the principle of the 39 hour week
but because of market conditions and trading losses
(details supplied to the Court) it is not in a position to
accede to the Union's demands.
2. The Company has always honoured its commitments under the
National Agreements and it is only the crises facing the
Company in recent times which prevents it from
implementing the 39 hour week. The Company's offer was an
interim one designed to meet the workers' aspirations as
far as possible. Accordingly, the Court is asked to
recommend in the Company's favour.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions finds that there
is an obligation to implement the reduction in working time as
provided for in the Programme for National Recovery.
The Court considers that it was not the intention of the parties
to the P.N.R. that the reduction in working time be achieved by
means of an overtime payment. The agreement also made provision
for the parties having regard to the costs involved in the
reduction of working time.
In all the circumstances of this case it is the view of the
Court that arrangements should be made to implement the hour
reduction in working hours with immediate effect and that the
break time be reduced to 20 and 10 minutes as proposed by the
Company this reduction to apply up to 30 April, 1992 when the
matter will be reviewed.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
9th January, 1992 --------------------
M.D./N.Ni.M Deputy Chairman