Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93210 Case Number: LCR14105 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BRINKS - ALLIED LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court recommends that the
39 hour week should be implemented with effect from 1st June,
1993. The Court further recommends that overtime should continue
to be based on the existing hourly rate and that a sum of #300 by
way of retrospection should be paid to each individual staff
member who was in employment on 1st January, 1992 and pro-rata to
staff who commenced employment after that.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93210 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14105
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: BRINKS - ALLIED LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Implementation of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) expired for
employees in the Company on the 30th June, 1991. The Union, on
behalf of approximately 42 workers, submitted a claim for the
implementation of a 39 hour week with effect from 1st July, 1991.
Following discussions between the parties at local level, the
Company, by letter dated 13th May, 1992, offered to implement the
39 hour week from that date on the basis of treating Friday as a
seven (7) hour day with hours over and above 7 hours paid at the
existing overtime rate (1/40th). The Union claimed retrospection
of the one hour reduction to 1st July, 1991. The Company rejected
the claim. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the 8th
December, 1992 and 15th February, 1993. As no agreement was
reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th
March, 1993. A Court hearing was held on the 27th May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is reasonable for the workers concerned to seek
implementation of a 39 hour week from 1st July, 1991. They
have given maximum co-operation to the Company which is a
major operator in the cash-in-transit area. The reduction in
the working week should have been implemented during the
period of the P.N.R. and the hourly rate set at 1/39th. The
Union estimates that the payments due to the workers in
respect of retrospection, amount to #630 per worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer to implement the one hour reduction
from a current date is fair and reasonable. It cannot afford
the cost of retrospection to 1st July, 1991 (approximately
#26,000). The cash-in-transit business is extremely
competitive and no other comparable Company has conceded the
39 hour week. Concession of the Union's claim would reduce
the Company's profitability to an unacceptable level and
reduce its competitiveness in the market place.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court recommends that the
39 hour week should be implemented with effect from 1st June,
1993. The Court further recommends that overtime should continue
to be based on the existing hourly rate and that a sum of #300 by
way of retrospection should be paid to each individual staff
member who was in employment on 1st January, 1992 and pro-rata to
staff who commenced employment after that.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
9th June, 1993 ---------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.