Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9216 Case Number: LCR13584 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Protection of earnings for 4 security workers at the Company's factory at Butlerstown.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made in this case.
It is evident that the workers concerned were on a shift designed
to provide cover for 24 hours 7 days per week, 365 days per year
in exactly the same fashion as other workers whose task imposed a
similar work arrangement.
The flexibility of hours available to them arises from the fact
that they are on security duties. It is the view of the Court,
however, that the same principle on the implementation of the 39
hour week should apply as applies to the continuous process
worker.
The Court therefore recommends that the standard 42 hour week be
implemented on the basis proposed by the Company and any losses
dealt with on the terms proposed elsewhere by the Court.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9216 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13584
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Protection of earnings for 4 security workers at the Company's
factory at Butlerstown.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company produces premium brand hand-crafted crystal
in its 3 plants at Kilbarry, Butlerstown and Dungarvan. There
are 2,217 workers employed. The Company has not made a profit
since 1986 and has accumulated losses of £77.6 million
(details supplied). The Company is in a lay-off situation and
since January, 1991, 23 weeks of lay-off/short time have been
implemented (details supplied).
2. The security workers work on average 42 hours per week
on continuous shift, 7 days per week. The Company and Unions
signed a comprehensive agreement in 1990. The agreement
provides that all workers will work a 39 hour basic week.
This change increased the workers' basic working week from
37.5 hours to 39 hours. The workers had historically been
paid in overtime hours, the difference between their basic
hours and the 42 hours they work in accordance with the shift
rota.
3. A dispute arose between the Company and the Union
representing the 4 security workers in March, 1991 regarding
the implementation of the comprehensive agreement. In July,
1990 the workers accepted the agreement and the change to new
hours for a basic week. The Company set up a new roster of
43½ hours to be worked per week. As a result, there was no
loss of earnings to the workers. In March, 1991, the Company
revised the roster to 42 hours per week, claiming that the
agreement had been misapplied by local management in March,
1990. The workers lost 1½ hours' overtime and were in dispute
with the Company, claiming that the agreement provided that
there would be no loss in wages.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 11th
September and 19th December, 1991. No resolution was possible
at conciliation and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on 9th January,
1992. A Labour Court investigation took place in Waterford on
19th February, 1992.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1990 agreement gave the Company an extra 1½ hours'
work per week. There was to be no loss of wages to the
workers and the Company was to benefit through maximising
productivity with no extra cost to them. As a result of the
agreement, the hours which the workers worked increased
(details supplied). In March, 1991 the Company reduced the
hours for which the workers were employed (details supplied).
This is unacceptable to the workers and they have continued to
work the hours as per the comprehensive agreement.
2. Although the Company has reduced the number of hours,
it has assigned duties in line with the hours of the 1990
agreement, i.e., spot checks and duties for cleaning staff.
All of the overtime up to 43½ hours which applies to security
is rostered overtime and has been treated as such in the
conditions attached to rostered overtime. If the Company was
intending to interfere in any way with this, it would have to
refer to clause 2.3 of the overall 1990 agreement. If the
Company's decision was to be allowed to stand, the security
workers would be the only category of worker to lose money as
a result of the 1990 agreement.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As part of the comprehensive agreement, all workers
agreed to work an extra 1½ hours without an increase in wages.
The workers in this case are on a shift of 42 hours per week
which they must work. As in the case of workers on similar
shift, the workers are paid 39 hours basic plus 3 hours at
appropriate overtime rates. When the misapplication of clause
7 was discovered by local management it was immediately
corrected.
2. If the workers had been allowed to continue at the rates
which applied prior to March, 1991, it would have had a knock
on effect involving other workers on similar shifts. In any
case the workers have enjoyed gains under other clauses of the
1990 agreement (details supplied) and there is no loss in
earnings as overall weekly pay has increased. The Company has
been fair and correct in the application of the 1990 agreement
(details supplied) and there is no loss in earnings involved.
Its implementation is also consistent with the normal
established practice where a change in the agreed basic
working week occurs (details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made in this case.
It is evident that the workers concerned were on a shift designed
to provide cover for 24 hours 7 days per week, 365 days per year
in exactly the same fashion as other workers whose task imposed a
similar work arrangement.
The flexibility of hours available to them arises from the fact
that they are on security duties. It is the view of the Court,
however, that the same principle on the implementation of the 39
hour week should apply as applies to the continuous process
worker.
The Court therefore recommends that the standard 42 hour week be
implemented on the basis proposed by the Company and any losses
dealt with on the terms proposed elsewhere by the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
-------------------
9th March, 1992
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.