Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9437 Case Number: LCR14360 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WOODFAB LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning: (a) Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) (b) Reduction in the working week.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
recommends as follows:-
LOSS OF EARNINGS
Having regard to the trading and financial circumstances at the
time, the Court considers that the abolition of overtime in
October, 1992 was prudent and necessary for the protection of the
business and the employment of the workers. Although the overtime
was worked on a regular basis, the circumstances which gave rise
to its withdrawal were such that the Court does not consider it
appropriate to recommend compensation.
CLAUSE 3 P.E.S.P.
The Court does not consider that the circumstances envisaged in
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. as grounds for additional payments, exist in
the Company at present. Accordingly, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9437 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14360
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WOODFAB LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:
(a) Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.)
(b) Reduction in the working week.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Woodfab plant in Aughrim is part of a group of
three companies owned by the Smurfit Group and engaged in the
timber industry in Aughrim, Fermoy, and Mountrath.
CLAUSE 3 OF P.E.S.P.
2. The Union sought the implementation of the 3% local
bargaining clause as provided for under the terms of the
P.E.S.P. from 1st March, 1992. The Company rejected this
claim on the grounds that it was making a loss and
experiencing difficulties in competing on the home and export
markets.
REDUCTION IN THE WORKING WEEK
3. Following the implementation of the 39-hour week, the
working hours in the Company were from Monday to Thursday,
8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and Friday, 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
When the lunch break was deducted this meant the operators
were working a 42 hour week. On 23rd October, 1992 the
Company advised the workers that it was reverting to a basic
39-hour week as follows: Monday to Thursday, 8.00 a.m. to
4.30 p.m. and Friday, 8.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. The Union
claimed compensation for the loss of the three hours'
overtime and the Company refused this on account of its
loss-making situation.
4. The issues were referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on 20th
May, 1992 and 11th February, 1993. Agreement could not be
reached and the issues were referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on 18th January, 1994. The
Court investigated the matter on 15th February, 1994 in
Arklow.
CLAUSE 3 OF THE P.E.S.P.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The wage rates in the Company are exceptionally low.
2. Half of this special increase has been applied to
workers in the Fermoy plant since 1st January, 1992.
3. The Company secured increased throughput particularly in
the profile department where the line has been speeded up.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot be considered an "exceptional"
company and the provisions of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. should not
apply to it.
2. The Company is making a loss.
REDUCTION IN THE WORKING WEEK
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
5. 1. The Company had always demanded the compulsory working
of 42 hours per week prior to this reduction in hours.
2. In negotiations on the 39-hour week in 1990, the Company
refused to permit the workers to finish work at 3.30 p.m. on
Fridays and insisted that compulsory overtime be maintained.
3. The Company was wrong to change the workers' conditions
of employment unilaterally without agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
6. 1. The Company's substantial loss-making situation and the
reduction in tonnage meant there was no longer a requirement
for the three hours' overtime.
2. The Company informed the Union that there was no blanket
ban on overtime and that overtime would be worked when
required.
3. At the time of the reduction in the amount of overtime,
the Company also terminated its "twilight" shift with a loss
of 18 jobs.
4. The re-introduction of overtime on 1st April, 1993 and
the additional shift reflects the Company's reversion to a
previous policy of attempting to reduce its losses by
increasing throughput and thus spreading its overhead.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
recommends as follows:-
LOSS OF EARNINGS
Having regard to the trading and financial circumstances at the
time, the Court considers that the abolition of overtime in
October, 1992 was prudent and necessary for the protection of the
business and the employment of the workers. Although the overtime
was worked on a regular basis, the circumstances which gave rise
to its withdrawal were such that the Court does not consider it
appropriate to recommend compensation.
CLAUSE 3 P.E.S.P.
The Court does not consider that the circumstances envisaged in
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. as grounds for additional payments, exist in
the Company at present. Accordingly, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th March, 1994. Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C./A.L. __________________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.