Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9361 Case Number: LCR14117 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (MANUFACTURING) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning a) 39 hour week and b) Christmas /New Year's Day shutdown.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds the manner in which this dispute was handled
by the Company does not auger well for developing and maintaining
good industrial relations and cannot be in the long term best
interests of the Company.
The Court finds that the Company conceded the reduction in working
time and this should be implemented as with all other workers with
effect from 1st January, 1991. It is the view of the Court that
concession of the above claim should resolve the issue in respect
of Public Holidays. The rate of pay should be adjusted from the
date applicable to other groups. The issue of the use of local
refreshment facilities should be a matter of discussion among all
staff involved and dealt with as a separate issue.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9361 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14117
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (MANUFACTURING) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning a) 39 hour week and
b) Christmas /New Year's Day shutdown.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a bulk pharmaceutical manufacturer
employing 180 people at Currabinny, Co. Cork. The Programme
for National Recovery (PNR) commenced for workers in the
Company on 1st December, 1987. As part of the PNR a
'Framework Agreement on Hours of Work' was agreed by the
social partners in February, 1989 to provide for the
reduction of one hour in the working week for those who
normally work forty hours or more
(A) 39 HOUR WEEK
2. On 13th March, 1989 the Union served a claim on the
Company in respect of the one hour reduction in the working
week. Correspondence and discussions followed over a lengthy
period with the Company seeking agreement to a number of
conditions in return for the reduction of one hour per week.
The Union agreed to all but one of these conditions i.e. the
use of purpose built refreshment facilities known as
Tea-Bars.
3. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the 20th
February, 1991 and the 21st March, 1991. No progress was
made at those conferences and on the 31st March, 1991 the
Company discontinued the credit of one hour for each 40 hours
worked which had been agreed and applied following the
Company's letter of 14th August, 1990. A further
conciliation conference was held on the 17th September, 1991
but agreement could not be reached.
(B) CHRISTMAS, NEW YEAR'S DAY SHUTDOWN/LOCKOUT
4. The system of working a 7 day continuous shift rota
which included working on public holidays commenced in
August, 1977. Following a dispute in 1984, agreement was
reached on the closure of the plant on August Monday only,
with all other public holidays being worked. In December,
1990, the settlement terms for the 39 hour week involved an
extended Christmas shutdown which also involved New Year's
Day. Arising from the dispute concerning the 39 hour week
the workers did not have the necessary hours available to
cover the Christmas shutdown in 1991. The workers showed up
for work on New Years's Day but were locked out by the
Company.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences took place on the 3rd
June, 1992 and the 16th December, 1992. Agreement could not
be reached.
6. Both issues were referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on the 20th January, 1993 and
the Court investigated the matter on the 5th May, 1993 in
Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A resolution of the 39 hour week issue could result in
both sides reaching agreement on the Christmas/New Year's Day
Shutdown.
2. No conditions were attached to the Company's offer in
the reduction of one hour in the working week.
3. The reduction of one hour in the working week was paid
for by the workers during the three year period of the PNR.
4. The Labour Court in Recommendation No. 9008, recommended
that workers who were due to work on Easter Monday 1984, and
who were locked out, should be paid as though they had
worked.
5. The New Year's Day situation in 1992 and 1993 is
identical to the Easter Monday 1984 incident.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A majority of employees accepted the conditions
attaching to the introduction of a 39 hour week and have
co-operated with the use of local refreshment facilities and
with the Christmas Shutdown arrangements since January, 1991.
2. The workerse concerned have not been required to use the
local refreshment facilities and consequently have not been
available for work during scheduled working time on the same
basis as others who use these facilities.
3. The claimants were not working under the same conditions
as those who received an adjustment in their hourly pay.
4. The Christmas holiday arrangements for the future can be
resolved by using time-off in lieu as a way of providing
leave entitlement during the Christmas period.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds the manner in which this dispute was handled
by the Company does not auger well for developing and maintaining
good industrial relations and cannot be in the long term best
interests of the Company.
The Court finds that the Company conceded the reduction in working
time and this should be implemented as with all other workers with
effect from 1st January, 1991. It is the view of the Court that
concession of the above claim should resolve the issue in respect
of Public Holidays. The rate of pay should be adjusted from the
date applicable to other groups. The issue of the use of local
refreshment facilities should be a matter of discussion among all
staff involved and dealt with as a separate issue.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th June, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. --------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.