Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93480 Case Number: LCR14285 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's proposal to change the hours of work of 4 cullet workers in the general section.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
made by the parties and to the various arguments made at the
oral hearing. The crucial issue to be decided is whether
changes in hours of work as proposed which result in a reduction
in overtime should come within the scope of Clause 10(2) or
Clause (9) of the Agreement concluded subsequent to ARB291.
The Court has come to the conclusion that Clause 10(2) is the
relevant clause and accordingly does not find in favour of the
Union and recommends acceptance of the Company's proposal.
However should the effect of the Company's decision to change
the hours of work of the employees concerned be particularly
severe and above the normal variation in overtime in a
manufacturing company both parties should review the loss
situation at the end of a 12 month period. Where the financial
loss is significant both parties should attempt to finalise the
matter locally. Where this is not possible the matter may be
refereed to the Labour Court for determination.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93480 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14285
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. Dispute concerning the Company's proposal to change the
hours of work of 4 cullet workers in the general section.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Waterford Crystal employs 1,550 people and produces
premium brand hand-crafted crystal in its plants at
Kilbarry, Butlerstown and Dungarvan. In January, 1993, the
Company concluded a cost improvement agreement with its
employees.
2. On the implementation of this agreement, the four
employees were transferred from other areas of the general
section to their current positions in the cullet area. The
cullet operatives service the blowing areas and ensure that
cullet is prepared for glass melting purposes and at the end
of each day's blowing production that cullet is removed from
bins leaving them empty and ready for the next day's
production. Following the resumption of work in July, 1990,
after strike, the working week for blowers was increased and
the emptying of the bins on Thursdays and Fridays could only
be done on overtime. The Company provided two hours
overtime each week and this was rotated between the four
men.
3. In January, 1993, the Company proposed changing the
working hours of the cullet workers in accordance with
Clause 10.2 of the Terms and Conditions Agreement 1990 (the
1990 Agreement). The Union objected to the Company's
proposals on the basis that the Company was not entitled to
use Clause 10.2 of the 1990 agreement to eliminate necessary
overtime. Local negotiations failed to resolve the dispute
and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 17th
July, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and the issue
was referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the
Labour Court on the 12th August, 1993. The Court
investigated the matter on the 3rd November, 1993 in
Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue of reducing and eliminating overtime has
been dealt with extensively in the 1990 and 1993 agreements.
2. Clause 10.2 cannot be used to eliminate necessary
overtime.
3. The Company should address overtime under other
Clauses in the 1990 Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 10 of the 1990 Agreement provides for the
changing of an employee's or any group of employees' hours
of work, including working on shifts where required by the
Company.
2. The work has always been carried out by cullet
operatives as part of their normal day's work and they were
never paid overtime for this prior to July, 1990.
3. There are many other non-shift employees whose daily
hours of work vary from the norm.
4. If the cullet operatives' hours of work are not
changed it will result in the Company incurring increased
costs, which are unnecessary and avoidable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
made by the parties and to the various arguments made at the
oral hearing. The crucial issue to be decided is whether
changes in hours of work as proposed which result in a reduction
in overtime should come within the scope of Clause 10(2) or
Clause (9) of the Agreement concluded subsequent to ARB291.
The Court has come to the conclusion that Clause 10(2) is the
relevant clause and accordingly does not find in favour of the
Union and recommends acceptance of the Company's proposal.
However should the effect of the Company's decision to change
the hours of work of the employees concerned be particularly
severe and above the normal variation in overtime in a
manufacturing company both parties should review the loss
situation at the end of a 12 month period. Where the financial
loss is significant both parties should attempt to finalise the
matter locally. Where this is not possible the matter may be
refereed to the Labour Court for determination.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
P O'C/U.S. ------------
Deputy Chairperson
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.