Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93325 Case Number: LCR14183 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MEASUREX IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the timing of summer holidays.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions notes that the holiday
arrangements for 1993 are in place.
The Court recommends that in the light of the 1993 experience the
parties review the position in November and seek to reach
agreement for future years.
In the event that the parties do not reach agreement the Court
will arrange an urgent hearing to consider the outcome of
discussions between the parties and issue a definitive
recommendation before December, 1993.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93325 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14183
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MEASUREX IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the timing of summer holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is situated on the industrial estate in
Waterford, employs 106 people and is involved in the
manufacturing of computerised process-controlling equipment
for use in the paper pulp and plastics industries. In
November, 1992, the Company announced a major rationalisation
programme due to a downturn in the Company's markets. The
Company wished to introduce a fixed summer holiday closedown
period for two weeks in 1993 and subsequent years. The Union
informed the Company that the workers were opposed to this as
they had enjoyed a flexible arrangement for many years.
2. The Company issued a memo to all staff setting out four
options for the summer shut-down, and indicated that the
option chosen by the majority would be the official
close-down period for 1993. The workers represented by the
Union objected to this arrangement and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference took place on the 3rd March, 1993 at which a set
of proposals were put forward by the Industrial Relations
Officer:-
(i) The interim arrangement in relation to a holiday
close-down agreed in respect of 1993 should be
continued to cover 1994.
(ii) The position in relation to a holiday close-down
should be reviewed in the Autumn of 1994 in the
light of the experience of the operation of the
close-down in 1993 and 1994.
(iii) In November, 1993 the employees should be
afforded the same opportunity to vote on the
choice of close-down period for 1994 as was
afforded in respect of 1993.
3. The union rejected these proposals and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court on 21st May, 1993. The Court
investigated the issue on the 1st July, 1993 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers in the Company have always enjoyed the option of
taking their annual leave without any constraints.
2. Workers consider flexibility on holidays as a condition
of employment and it is contained as such in the company
handbook.
3. Following recent redundancies as a result of the recent
recession and downturn in business, the workers increased
their productivity and accepted changes in work practices in
order to maintain the viable and competitive position of the
Company.
4. The flexible arrangement gave people greater choice of
having their rest and relaxation at a time of their and their
families choosing within the constraints of department
requirements.
5. Workers have agreed to the 1993 shut-down arrangement as
an interim measure to help the Company through its
difficulties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The operation of a fixed shutdown period was and is an
integral part of the survival plan for the Company.
2. The cost-savings involved by the operation of a fixed
shutdown were budgeted for in the package.
3. There is less disruption in information flow and general
product quality because of the nature of the work.
4. There was extensive research done by the Company on the
most suitable dates and options were given to all employees.
5. All other employees, apart from these workers, have
accepted the proposals.
6. In previous years certain constraints were applied to
the taking of holidays to take account of manning levels
within each department.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions notes that the holiday
arrangements for 1993 are in place.
The Court recommends that in the light of the 1993 experience the
parties review the position in November and seek to reach
agreement for future years.
In the event that the parties do not reach agreement the Court
will arrange an urgent hearing to consider the outcome of
discussions between the parties and issue a definitive
recommendation before December, 1993.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th August, 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.