Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95508 Case Number: LCR14983 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TARKETT LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for additional annual leave for extra time worked.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions, the Court recommends that the
Union agree to participate in the proposed introduction of
flexitime on a trial period as set out in the Company document.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95508 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14983
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TARKETT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for additional annual leave for extra time worked.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a member of the Tarkett/Pegulan Group and
manufactures sheet vinyl (PVC) flooring, employing a staff of
approximately 200. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union
on behalf of approximately 25 clerical and technical grade
workers to be allowed to lengthen their working day by 15
minutes, in return for which they would be entitled to
between 6 and 8 days of additional leave. At present,
general operators in the Company work a 40-hour week, 39
hours of which are paid for. The other hours worked are
accumulated towards a week's leave in Spring, plus 12 hours'
pay. The Company was prepared to enter into a flexitime
arrangement with the claimants on a trial basis but
discussions broke down when the Union rejected the concept of
clocking in/out.
The Company stated that it has no need for these employees to
work additional time on a daily basis and that their work
can be completed within normal working hours.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at
which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 13th of November, 1995, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court carried out its investigation, in Mullingar, on the
15th of November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The standard annual leave entitlement of the claimants
is 21 days per year (after 15 years' service they may
have a further 3 days). Of the 21 days' leave, 19 are
fixed or set. There is very little leeway or
flexibility for leave to be available to suit personal
needs.
2. The claimants have the lowest annual leave entitlement
of any group in the Company. Usually clerical/technical
staff have more leave than operatives but in this
Company the reverse is true.
3. Under the Programme for National Recovery, hourly paid
general workers were given an additional 6.5 days' leave
per year in lieu of the 39-hour week. Management
refused to extend similar additional leave to
clerical/technical staff because they said they did not
"qualify" as they worked a 37.5-hour week. However, an
additional 6.5 days was also extended to middle and
senior management (non-union grades). Why the claimants
do not "qualify" on the same grounds was never
explained.
4. The clerical/technical grades actually spend more time
in the factory than any other grades because (i) they do
not get paid for lunch breaks and, therefore, spend a
minimum of 41 hours and 15 minutes per week in the plant
(37.5 hours plus 5 breaks of 45 minutes), (ii) all of
their work is confined to the factory and no
opportunities arise for business trips, outside
meetings, client visits, etc.
5. The claim is non-cost increasing as it only involves a
direct swap of hours.
6. The Company has no valid grounds to deny the claim since
it is prepared to introduce flexitime which by
definition allows employees to extend the working week
and, thereby, to earn more leave days.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is both cost-increasing and detrimental to the
Company's operational efficiency in that the extra time
being worked by the claimants could not be productively used. The abs
present the available work is being done in the existing
time-frame. The Company would also have to provide
some type of cover for normal work during the extra
week's close-down as the clerical/administration
function would need to continue to operate during this
time period and, therefore, there would be a cost-
increasing element to the claim.
2. Should the requirement arise to work additional time
during the normal week this is covered by overtime which
the operators concerned can turn into banked time and
take as time off.
3. The Company regard the proposal made in relation to
flexitime as being a reasonable proposal under the
circumstances. It provides clerical operators with the
opportunity to accrue some time off whilst not having
too detrimental an effect on the Company's operations.
4. The Union's initial claim to be allowed take the extra
week off with the operators was not justified. The
Company has tried to accommodate the desire amongst the
clerical operators for some flexibility in their working
hours by means of the proposed flexitime agreement. The
position which the Union is seeking is not suited in any
manner to the Company's operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court recommends that the
Union agree to participate in the proposed introduction of
flexitime on a trial period as set out in the Company document.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th November, 1995 Evelyn Owens
M.K./D.T. ---------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.