Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/91/658 Case Number: LCR13585 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ABS PUMPS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the calculation of the hourly rate for the 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions, the Court recommends that
the Union's claim be conceded.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91658 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13585
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1990
PARTIES: ABS PUMPS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the calculation of the hourly rate for the
39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is Swedish owned. Its manufacturing plant
in Wexford was established in 1973. There are 34 workers
employed there. The Company introduced the 39 hour week under
the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) on 1st
January, 1991. The agreement was implemented by the Company
giving 6 days' leave in lieu of the reduction of an hour per
week.
2. The issue of the overtime divisor (1/39 or 1/40) was not
discussed by the parties until immediately prior to the vote
by the workers on the agreement. At the request of local shop
stewards the Company clarified that the divisor of 1/40 would
continue to be used as the basis for calculating overtime.
The Union accepted the offer but reserved the right to make a
claim in the future.
3. The Union activated the claim and it was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on 30th October, 1991 at which no resolution was
possible. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on 6th December, 1991, under
Section 26 (1) (a) (b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court investigation took place in Wexford on 18th
February, 1992, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During negotiations on the 39 hour week, the issue of
the overtime divisor was not brought up as it was assumed that
it would logically change as the number of hours in the week
changed. It came at as surprise to the Union that the Company
intended to retain the 1/40 overtime divisor. The 39 hour
week was introduced but no agreement was reached on the
overtime divisor.
2. The Company has argued that the hourly rate increases
were contrary to the PNR as it was cost-increasing. At the
Company's request, the Union sent details of other companies
which had increased the hourly rate (details supplied). The
Union has made it clear throughout the negotiations that it
was always its intention to seek to have the revised hourly
rate divisor implemented in accordance with common custom and
practice.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The question of how overtime was to be calculated within
the new agreement was clarified by the Company prior to the
vote by the workers. It was on the basis of this
clarification that the vote took place. The arrangement fully
complies with the framework agreement of the P.N.R., that is,
reducing the working week in such a manner as to minimise any
adverse effects on cost competitiveness, productivity and
employment with no loss or gain in pay.
2. The proposal by the Company was a package deal of days
off in lieu which provided that, while overtime on the one
hand would be paid on the 40 hour rate, workers would not lose
benefit until they accumulate 20 days of absence. The Company
did its costings on the basis of a 1/40 divisor; to change the
specifics of the agreement alters the balance from the
Company's viewpoint.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions, the Court recommends that
the Union's claim be conceded.
~
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.