Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93315 Case Number: LCR14157 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BATCHELORS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the hours of work of warehouse employees.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having
particular regard to the history of the business from 1988
onwards, the Court is of the view that customer requirements must
be a paramount concern for both the Company and the work-force in
terms of business viability and employment security. The Court is
satisfied from the evidence presented that an earlier start is a
customer requirement and should be introduced.
Although the hours revision of the 1988 agreement was not
implemented, intervening negotiations show that it was not
abandoned by the Company and this fact weakens the argument of
custom and practice.
The Court considers that the agreement stands and recommends that
the Union accept liability under it to work the revised hours.
Because of the unusual delay in implementation the Court further
recommends on implementation an ex gratia payment of #200 to each
of the workers concerned who were working the existing hours prior
to 1st January, 1993.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93315 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14157
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BATCHELORS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the hours of work of warehouse employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures a wide range of canned and packed
food products under the Batchelors brand and aseptically
packed juice and juice drinks under the Squeeze brand. The
Company is a brand leader in the field and employs over 300
people in two manufacturing plants in Dublin and Athy.
2. In 1988, following the loss of business from Coca-Cola
and Dunnes Stores, a major rationalisation programme took
place in the Company. A comprehensive agreement was
negotiated encompassing revised work practices and conditions
of employment including hours of work. The new shift times in
the agreement were 7.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. to
10.30 p.m. The revised hours of work were implemented
throughout the plant in all departments with the exception of
the Distribution Department which remained on the old shift
times of 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.
In March, 1990, due to an increase in business, the Company
sought the application of the 1988 Agreement with the revised
shift arrangements to the Distribution Department.
3. Local negotiations took place but agreement could not be
reached. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the
27th April, 1993. Agreement again could not be reached and
the issue was referred by the Labour Relations Commission to
the Labour Court on the 21st May, 1993. The Court
investigated the matter on the 14th July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company at the time of the Agreement decided that
they did not wish to implement the agreed new shift times for
the warehouse workers (Distribution Department).
2. During the last five years the workers have provided
cover on an overtime basis when an earlier start was required.
3. The 8.00 a.m. start has become the norm and the workers
believe that it is not necessary to change.
4. Shift working is anti-social in nature and to alter the
hours would make it even worse.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, in the context of having increased its
business following the difficult period which arose after
loosing business from Coca-Cola and Dunnes Stores, now needs
to implement the Agreement.
2. In order to facilitate customer collection of orders and
give a better turnaround to their trucks, it is necessary to
load the trucks at 7.00 a.m. when they arrive.
3. By loading these customer trucks before the Company's
own transport returns for second loads the Company are
facilitating their customers and are ready for their own
trucks when they return.
4. Customers request a quicker turnaround time and the only
way to guarantee this is with an early morning start.
5. The Company has been paying the shift premium to
distribution staff under the 1988 Agreement since the 20th
May, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having
particular regard to the history of the business from 1988
onwards, the Court is of the view that customer requirements must
be a paramount concern for both the Company and the work-force in
terms of business viability and employment security. The Court is
satisfied from the evidence presented that an earlier start is a
customer requirement and should be introduced.
Although the hours revision of the 1988 agreement was not
implemented, intervening negotiations show that it was not
abandoned by the Company and this fact weakens the argument of
custom and practice.
The Court considers that the agreement stands and recommends that
the Union accept liability under it to work the revised hours.
Because of the unusual delay in implementation the Court further
recommends on implementation an ex gratia payment of #200 to each
of the workers concerned who were working the existing hours prior
to 1st January, 1993.
~
Signed on behalf the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
27th July, 1993 ---------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman