Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93360 Case Number: LCR14193 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SHANAKIEL HOSPITAL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of the 39-hour week.
Recommendation:
5. Regrettably, the employer chose not to attend this Court
hearing, but instead wrote a short letter stating how the
arrangements for the introduction of the 39 hour week had been
made by them without discussions or agreement with the Unions and
saying that staff currently are satisfied with the revised
arrangements which have been implemented without consultation.
At the hearing, the Union submitted clear evidence that the
original arrangements had, in fact, been made following a meeting
with the employer on 23rd October, 1990. Further it was stated
that the members are not satisfied with the changes recently
implemented on a unilateral basis, and that the changes may, in
fact, have caused some loss of earnings. Such loss, if in fact it
has occurred, would be a clear contravention of the intent of the
39 hour week, i.e., to reduce the working week without either loss
or gain in financial terms.
On the basis of the hearing, the Court has no hesitation in
recommending that management agree forthwith to meet the Union to
discuss the question of the 39 hour week and how it should now be
implemented and further, should undertake to discuss changes they
may require in the future to the terms and conditions of the
employees with their union representatives.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93360 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14193
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SHANAKIEL HOSPITAL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of the 39-hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Hospital is a Private Hospital funded through a
combination of private and public patients. In 1990 it was
agreed that workers could accumulate time off in lieu of the
reduction of the working week and take this time off in blocks
of four hours. On the 23rd April, 1993, the workers informed
the Union that they had been advised that the facility of time
off in lieu would be withdrawn and the reduction of the
working week would now be achieved by extending breaks and
altering starting times.
2. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission but the Company refused to attend a conciliation
conference. On 10th June, 1993, the Union referred the issue
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations act, 1969. The Court investigated the matter on the
18th August, 1993 in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The withdrawal of the time-in-lieu facility has resulted
in losses for the workers.
2. There has been a major change to the workers' conditions
of employment with altered starting times and extended breaks.
3. The original agreement should stand until an alternative
agreement is reached.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The working of the 39-hour week was implemented in the
hospital without discussion or agreement with the Unions. No
objections were raised to the manner of its implementation.
2. Some employees continued working a 40-hour week,
accumulating one hour credit per week resulting in 6 days'
additional leave. The cost of this additional leave is
prohibitive.
3. Staff have been given the monetary benefit of the
reduced working week and the current working arrangements will
not affect this position.
4. Staff are satisfied with the arrangements for the
39-hour week.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Regrettably, the employer chose not to attend this Court
hearing, but instead wrote a short letter stating how the
arrangements for the introduction of the 39 hour week had been
made by them without discussions or agreement with the Unions and
saying that staff currently are satisfied with the revised
arrangements which have been implemented without consultation.
At the hearing, the Union submitted clear evidence that the
original arrangements had, in fact, been made following a meeting
with the employer on 23rd October, 1990. Further it was stated
that the members are not satisfied with the changes recently
implemented on a unilateral basis, and that the changes may, in
fact, have caused some loss of earnings. Such loss, if in fact it
has occurred, would be a clear contravention of the intent of the
39 hour week, i.e., to reduce the working week without either loss
or gain in financial terms.
On the basis of the hearing, the Court has no hesitation in
recommending that management agree forthwith to meet the Union to
discuss the question of the 39 hour week and how it should now be
implemented and further, should undertake to discuss changes they
may require in the future to the terms and conditions of the
employees with their union representatives.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
14th September, 1993 ----------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.