Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92597 Case Number: LCR13994 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: W.M. CONNOLLY AND SONS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning: (1) Hourly rate of pay arising out of the 39 hour week, (2) Protective clothing, (3) 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
Recommendation:
39 HOUR WEEK
11. The purpose of the 39 hour working-week (or reduced working
time equivalent) was to increase leisure time for workers without
any loss or gain of pay. These conditions are met by the
arrangements now in place in the Company and the Court does not
find grounds to recommend any change.
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
The Court does not consider that a compelling case has been made
to alter existing arrangements and therefore recommends that these
continue.
3% CLAUSE 3 (P.E.S.P)
Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing and having subsequently reviewed the Company accounts, the
Court considers that there are grounds for negotiation between the
parties under Clause 3 (P.E.S.P.). The Court recommends that such
negotiations take place. The Court however, draws the attention
of the parties to the requirements of the Clause that
'negotiations take full account of the implications for
competitiveness, the need for flexibility and change and the
contribution made by employees to such change".
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92597 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13994
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: W.M. CONNOLLY AND SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:
(1) Hourly rate of pay arising out of the 39 hour week,
(2) Protective clothing,
(3) 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures animal foodstuffs and employs 105
workers. The claims were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 20th January, 1992. A conciliation conference
was held on the 5th May, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 30th September, 1992. A Court hearing was held
in Kilkenny on the 26th January, 1993.
Claim I - Hourly Rate of Pay:
Background:
3. The parties reached agreement on the introduction of a 39 hour
week with effect from 1st April, 1990 whereby the workers
concerned would receive six additional holidays per annum. The
hourly rate of pay being applied by the Company is 1/40th. The
Union claims that the hourly rate should be 1/39th. Management
rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is an agreement in place guaranteeing a 39 hour
week to the workers concerned. When the 40 hour week was in
place the hourly rate was arrived at by dividing the weekly
rate by 40. Now that a 39 hour week exists the weekly rate
should be divided by 39 and any overtime payments made since
1st April, 1990 should be adjusted to reflect the current
hourly rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company implemented the reduction in working time by
granting 6 days extra leave to be accumulated over the year.
The option of the 6 extra days was chosen by the Union, and
there is no rationale for adjusting the hourly rate as
employees still work a forty hour week.
2. There are large amounts of overtime worked at the
Company's plant and there would be substantial costs involved
which the Company could not sustain. Some employees work up
to 20 hours of overtime per week.
Claim 2 - Protective Clothing:
Background:
6. The Company supplies overalls and pays half the cost of each
pair. The Union claims that the Company should supply overalls
and boots at no cost to the workers. Management rejected the
claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
7. The provision of protective clothing and boots is a basic
requirement of most comparable employments. Health and safety
requirements necessitate the provision of these items.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. There is no reason for altering the current practice.
In certain areas of the plant where extra protective clothing
is required, such as ear-muffs, gloves or dust masks, these
items are supplied by the Company.
2. The provision of additional protective clothing would be
very costly; it is a cost-increasing claim and is precluded by
the terms of the P.E.S.P.
CLAIM 3 - INCREASE UNDER CLAUSE 3 OF P.E.S.P.:
Background: The Union sought payment of the 3% with effect from
1st April, 1992. Management rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. The Union, in seeking the 3% increase, has taken into account
the implications for competitiveness flexibility and workers'
contribution. The contribution of the workforce to change and
flexibility is ongoing. New lunch time working arrangements
resulted in the loss of half an hour's overtime per day. This
had been a regular feature of workers' employment for many
years. Compensation was not received. Drivers have also
co-operated with changes resulting in overtime reductions.
Reductions in the workforce have meant increased flexibility
and an extra work-load relating to the operation of machines.
These are typical concessions given to the Company which other
employers sought in exchange for payment of the 3%.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. states "exceptionally employers
may negotiate further changes in rates of pay", etc. The
Company's performance is not exceptional. It is trying to
rebuild after a disastrous fire in 1991. It is currently
sustaining losses because of high interest rates and
devaluation of sterling.
2. The agri-business is in a depressed state. One of the
Company's major products - horse feed-faces serious
competition from an English product. The production of soya
beans is substantially reduced and fish food production has
ceased. The Company has invested heavily in improving its
fleet of trucks; 78,000 extra miles per year have to be done
to maintain the same tonnage. Much of this is in the West
which inevitably has led to increased overtime costs.
3. The Company has honoured the basic terms of P.E.S.P. and
that is the limit of its ability to pay. Concession of the
claim would jeopardise the Company's trading position.
RECOMMENDATION:
39 HOUR WEEK
11. The purpose of the 39 hour working-week (or reduced working
time equivalent) was to increase leisure time for workers without
any loss or gain of pay. These conditions are met by the
arrangements now in place in the Company and the Court does not
find grounds to recommend any change.
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
The Court does not consider that a compelling case has been made
to alter existing arrangements and therefore recommends that these
continue.
3% CLAUSE 3 (P.E.S.P)
Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing and having subsequently reviewed the Company accounts, the
Court considers that there are grounds for negotiation between the
parties under Clause 3 (P.E.S.P.). The Court recommends that such
negotiations take place. The Court however, draws the attention
of the parties to the requirements of the Clause that
'negotiations take full account of the implications for
competitiveness, the need for flexibility and change and the
contribution made by employees to such change".
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
-----------------
15th March, 1993 Chairman
T O'D/U.S.
NOTE
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR. TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.