Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9282 Case Number: LCR13656 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FERRERO IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made and having
given the parties further time to negotiate on the issue directly,
recommends that the terms proposed in the F.I.E.'s letter of 14th
April, 1992 be applied with retrospective effect from the 1st
February, 1992 and the proposals so amended be accepted in full
settlement of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9282 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13656
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FERRERO IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 100 workers who are
employed on a three shift system. In May, 1990 the Union
submitted a claim for the introduction of a 39 hour week as
provided for under the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.). The Company rejected the claim on the grounds
that the workers concerned were already working less than a 40
hour week. The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th
November, 1990. A conciliation conference was held under the
auspices of the Labour Relation Commission on the 29th August,
1991 but no agreement was reached. The matter was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 30th
January, 1992. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork on the
25th March, 1992. The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties
an opportunity to resolve the issue at further local discussions.
Subsequently the Federation of Irish Employers on behalf of the
Company put forward a set of proposals to the Union by letter
dated 14th April, 1992. (Appendix A refers). The proposals were
rejected following a ballot of the Union membership.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a reduction in the working week of
one hour. It has offered to discuss with Management the
possibility of the reduction being achieved by the elimination
of one ten minute break per day. The majority of companies
give workers paid breaks and have also implemented the one
hour reduction. The Union is only seeking that which is
already the norm in comparable employments.
2. The Labour Court, in two previous recommendations where
Management argued against the reduction of one hour, on the
grounds that workers had paid breaks, recommended that a 39
hour week be implemented (L.C.R. 12916, L.C.R. 12917 refer).
The net effect of the Company's position is that no worker
with a paid break would benefit from the clause on working
hours in the P.N.R. The Union asks the Court to recommend the
reduction in the working week by one hour.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned operate a shift system as follows:
8.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m., 4.00 p.m. - midnight, midnight - 8.00
a.m. Each shift has the following breaks: Tea break - 10
minutes, lunch break 30 minutes, personal breaks paid 3X10
minutes. This gives a total working time of 34 hours 10
minutes. The Framework Agreement on Hours states "This
Agreement applies to workers whose working week is at or above
40 hours" The workers concerned already have a working week of
less than 40 hours. There is no validity in the Union's
claim. Because the workers concerned have actual working time
below 39 hours any claim for a further reduction would be in
conflict with Clause 4 of the P.N.R. and Clause 5 of P.E.S.P.
in that the claim is a cost increasing one.
2. The Company is complying with both the terms of the P.N.R.
and P.E.S.P. and no basis exists for the Union's claim. In
this context Management rejects the claim. It must be
emphasised that concession would seriously impact on the
Company's economic performance.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made and having
given the parties further time to negotiate on the issue directly,
recommends that the terms proposed in the F.I.E.'s letter of 14th
April, 1992 be applied with retrospective effect from the 1st
February, 1992 and the proposals so amended be accepted in full
settlement of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
18th May, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.
APPENDIX A 14th April, 1992
Further to our discussions on Friday, 10th April I confirm the
terms of the proposal that emerged and which you would be putting
for ballot to your members.
1. With effect from the week following formal confirmation of
acceptance of the proposals they would be implemented. This
would mean attendance hours of 39 hours or equivalent instead
of the 40 attendance hours.
2. The methods to be used would be (a) restructuring of Friday
shift times in Tie Tac to 8 a.m. - 3 p.m.; 3 p.m. - 10 p.m.
and 10 p.m. - 5 a.m. and (b) credit hours in plastics with 3
hours off on a 3 weekly cycle basis.
3. The following changes would be introduced on the break times.
These include both a reduction and elimination of breaks.
(a) Monday to Friday
Morning break of 10 minutes during 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.
eliminated. 10 mins x 5 = 50 mins.
(b) Monday to Friday
Change over 5 mins eliminated. 5 mins x 5 = 25 mins.
(c) Friday only
The afternoon break of 10 mins to be eliminated
= 10 mins.
Total = 85 mins.