Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95692 Case Number: LCR15077 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MEATH SHELTERED WORKSHOP - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Rehearing arising from LCR14596 concerning productivity and flexibility measures.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that there is a liability for the employees here
concerned to work hours in excess of the present attendance time
(9.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m). In the circumstances the Court does not
consider that the proposal to reduce the lunch break to 30 minutes
is unreasonable.
Accordingly the Court recommends the package of proposals put
forward by the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted as a basis
of resolving the matter.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95692 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15077
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MEATH SHELTERED WORKSHOP
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rehearing arising from LCR14596 concerning productivity and
flexibility measures.
BACKGROUND:
2. Discussions concerning improvements in pay and annual leave on
behalf of 10 attendant workers have been ongoing since June, 1993.
Conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations
Commission took place in February, 1994 and April, 1994 followed by
a Labour Court hearing on 6th October, 1994. The Labour Court
Recommendation LCR14596 issued on 1st November, 1994 and four of
the five proposals were subsequently agreed and implemented. The
current dispute concerns the productivity/flexibility measures
referred to in paragraph (3) which reads as follows:-
"(3) The balance of £10.04 which is the subject of
Labour Court Recommendation 14031 be applied to
rates of pay on the same date that it is
applied in the Health Boards, subject to
agreement on the introduction of such
productivity/flexibility measures as may be
agreed between the parties."
Further conciliation conferences were held on 8th August, 1995 and
21st November, 1995 at which the Industrial Relations Officer (IRO)
made the following proposals:-
(1) The existing 4.00 p.m. finishing time will
continue to apply for existing staff in the
workshop on a 'red circle' basis.
(2) In order to facilitate 3 lunch-time sittings
which would reduce the number of trainees at
each sitting and ease the situation from a
control view point, it is proposed that staff
take a 30 minute lunch break each day.
(3) An attendance system should be put in place.
(4) A comprehensive agreement formalising contracts
of employment should be put in place.
(5) An interim pay system should be put in place.
This system would operate on a fortnightly
basis as follows:-
- average payments would be made to
employees after week 1.
- balancing payments, if any, would be
included in pay for week 2.
These were rejected by the Union. It was agreed to jointly refer
the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 24th January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management is seeking productivity and flexibility
measures which are vastly in excess of, and totally
disproportionate to, the payment of £10.04 offered.
Health Board workers received a similar payment for
conceding fortnightly pay and the introduction of
paypath.
2. Following conciliation talks the Union has agreed to
concede fortnightly pay, paypath, the elimination of the
previous free lunch concession and to formalise contracts
of employment. These concessions more than offset the
cost of £10.04 per week to Management.
3. Management's proposal to compulsorily reduce all lunch
breaks by 2.5 hours per week is unacceptable. The
workers voluntarily take a half hour reduction in their
lunch break twice a week and will guarantee to ensure
continued supervisory cover during the lunch break as at
the present time. An increase of 2.5 hours work per week
would benefit Management by over £17 per person, while
Management are offering an increase of only £10.04.
WORKSHOP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The cumulative increase in pay arising from LCR14596
equates to £31.32 for staff at the maximum of the pay
scale. The majority of the proposals put forward by the
I.R.O. do not represent major changes for staff, who will
in fact benefit from the formalising of employment
contracts.
2. The workers' counterparts in the Health Board Service
work 39 hours per week while the workers concerned work
only 31 hours per week. The I.R.O.'s proposal of a 32.5
hour working week is an increase of only 1.5 hours. This
is still 6.5 hours less than Health Board workers.
3. The proposed 30 minute lunch break would facilitate
better supervision of trainees, who would also benefit
from an extra 1.5 hours training per week, with a minimal
disruption to staff.
4. Due to transport schedules for the trainees, a practice
has developed whereby both trainees and staff finish at
4.00 p.m. instead of the original contracted time of 5.00
p.m.. The early finish for staff was not a formal agreed
change to their contracted weekly working hours but has
been allowed to continue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that there is a liability for the employees here
concerned to work hours in excess of the present attendance time
(9.00 a.m. - 4.00 p.m). In the circumstances the Court does not
consider that the proposal to reduce the lunch break to 30 minutes
is unreasonable.
Accordingly the Court recommends the package of proposals put
forward by the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted as a basis
of resolving the matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
9th February, 1996 --------------
D.G./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MS DYMPNA GREENE, COURT SECRETARY.