Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94381 Case Number: LCR14507 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Overtime Ban.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by both
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court recognises the reluctance of the employees to carry out
work on an overtime basis while their colleagues are on lay-off.
However, the Court also recognises the current position of the
Company and the need to ensure it retains contracts if it is to be
viable and be in a position to maximise security of employment.
In this context, there is a compelling need to ensure that the
development work in respect of the model changes is carried out.
The Court recognises the circumstances which existed at a given
time and which gave rise to the assumption that overtime working
which has been a normal feature of model changes in past years
would not be required. These circumstances changed for a number
of reasons, particularly the considerable technical changes
demanded by the customer.
To secure the contracts, the future of the Company and its
employees, the Court recommends that the overtime in relation to
the model changes be worked, and that on a weekly basis the
workers be apprised of the work to be carried out and the hours
needed to carry out such work.
Given the significance for the future of the Company of ensuring
that work in relation to model changes is carried out without
interruption the Court recommends that the parties should agree
procedures which clearly separate this work from normal production
work.
The Court notes that the Company is prepared to reinstate 15
workers on a permanent basis. It is the view of the Court that on
acceptance of this recommendation the parties should seek to
maximise the numbers of workers to be taken back on a permanent
basis.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94381 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14507
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
PACKARD ELECTRIC IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Overtime Ban.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures wiring harnesses for the motor
industry. Due to a significant downturn in business in
recent years the Company was forced to layoff a large
number of workers. The Unions, following a ballot of
their members, introduced a ban on all overtime during
the period of lay-offs. The Company is presently
preparing for the introduction of a model change for
1995 and requires a number of specialist workers to do a
substantial amount of overtime over a ten week period.
The overtime usually occurs at this time annually
coinciding with model changes. The workers rejected the
Company proposal and reiterated their decision to ban
overtime working.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the
14th July, 1994. As no agreement could be reached the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th
July, 1994. A Court hearing was held on the 19th July,
1994. A letter recommendation was issued on the 19th
July, 1994.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions' decision to ban overtime was conveyed to the
Company in May, 1994. Management indicated to the
Unions' that they could complete the model change work
without the need to introduce overtime.
2. In June, 1994 the Unions' Section Committee at the plant
agreed, on a once-off basis to a total of 50 hours
overtime in return for which the Company recalled two
workers from lay-off.
3. The Company never explained directly to the workforce
why it then required approximately 8,000 hours overtime.
4. The workers could not agree to this overtime given the
large number of workers on lay-off and the Company's
statement in May, 1994 that overtime would not be
required.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot complete a model change without the
overtime requirement, and will not be in a position to
supply its main customer. This will lead to a large
penalty clause cost and have very serious repercussions
for the future employment of the workforce.
2. The Company cannot bring back large numbers of workers
from lay-off to do this work which requires specialist
training and is highly skilled.
3. The Company has recently recalled 50 workers from
lay-off. It proposes to take 15 workers back from
lay-off on a permanent basis once the overtime ban is
lifted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by both
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court recognises the reluctance of the employees to carry out
work on an overtime basis while their colleagues are on lay-off.
However, the Court also recognises the current position of the
Company and the need to ensure it retains contracts if it is to be
viable and be in a position to maximise security of employment.
In this context, there is a compelling need to ensure that the
development work in respect of the model changes is carried out.
The Court recognises the circumstances which existed at a given
time and which gave rise to the assumption that overtime working
which has been a normal feature of model changes in past years
would not be required. These circumstances changed for a number
of reasons, particularly the considerable technical changes
demanded by the customer.
To secure the contracts, the future of the Company and its
employees, the Court recommends that the overtime in relation to
the model changes be worked, and that on a weekly basis the
workers be apprised of the work to be carried out and the hours
needed to carry out such work.
Given the significance for the future of the Company of ensuring
that work in relation to model changes is carried out without
interruption the Court recommends that the parties should agree
procedures which clearly separate this work from normal production
work.
The Court notes that the Company is prepared to reinstate 15
workers on a permanent basis. It is the view of the Court that on
acceptance of this recommendation the parties should seek to
maximise the numbers of workers to be taken back on a permanent
basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th July, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.