Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95630 Case Number: LCR15057 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Duration and review of 39 hour week arising from ARB1/90.
Recommendation:
1998
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95630 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15057
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Duration and review of 39 hour week arising from ARB1/90.
BACKGROUND:
2. A thirty-seven and a half hour working week was agreed
between the Union and the Company in 1979 and was phased in
between June, 1979 and December, 1980. It remained in force
until July, 1990.
The workforce agreed to return to a thirty-nine hour week in
accordance with the 1990 agreement which resolved a fourteen
week long strike at the plant.
A dispute over the duration of the agreement on a thirty-nine
hour week and the effect on the hourly rate of pay was
referred to the Labour Court in August, 1990.
The Labour Court issued its findings on the 15th August, 1990
(ARB1/90 refers) in respect of the duration of the
thirty-nine hour working week and stated that:-
"The thirty-nine hour week should be reviewed by the
parties in January, 1995 unless in the interim, there is
agreement at National level to reduce the normal working
week below this level. If such occurs, the matter
should be discussed by the Company and the Union in the
context of the National Agreement."
In 1991/1992 Waterford Crystal suffered further trading and
financial difficulties. A new set of proposals were put
forward in 1992 to secure the survival of the Company and to
secure the maximum number of permanent jobs.
A new Cost Improvement Agreement was agreed with the Union
and implemented with effect from 18th January, 1993. (Labour
Court Recommendation No. LCR13911 refers). Savings of £5.2
million were agreed as the minimum necessary to become
competitive.
In July, 1994 an Investment/Competitiveness Agreement was
concluded between the Company and the Union. The Agreement
arose from the agreed investment commitments ("securing the
future") as contained in the 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement.
The 1993 Agreement copper-fastened the thirty-nine hour basic
working week for all employees.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The number of jobs in the Company has fallen from 3,300
in 1987 to 1,500 in 1995 with extensive short-time being
worked.
2. The Union rejects the claim that Company costs would
increase by 4% as a result of reducing the working week
from thirty-nine to thirty-seven and a half hours.
3. The introduction of new technology has further reduced
costs and allows the Company to produce products which
were being outsourced.
4. The various agreements the Union has had with the
Company over the past number of years has resulted in
profits for the Company of £7.8 million in 1993, £13
million in 1994 and £4.5 million for the first six
months of 1995. The Company can now afford to concede
this claim and revert back to a thirty-seven and a half
hour working week for our members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The impact of the 1989/1990 agreement together with the
1993 agreement significantly contributed to the survival
of the Company. It has made the Company more
competitive.
2. The 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement secured the
thirty-nine hour week for the foreseeable future. Both
the Union and the Company were aware that the conditions
of agreement could not be rolled back when the Company
returned to profit. A basic working week of thirty-nine
hours remains the National norm.
3. The 1993 Agreement copper-fastened the thirty-nine hour
basic working week for all employees. To deviate from
this would impact on jobs and set back efforts to retain
the maximum number of sustainable permanent jobs.
4. The Company must remain competitive. The thirty-nine
hour week gives it this competitiveness. It was agreed
that there would be no further wage claims or cost
increasing claims served on the Company up to 31st
December, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
finds as follows:-
The Court is satisfied that under the terms of ARB1/90 the
Union is entitled to seek a review of the thirty-nine hour
week. Having examined the events which took place from 1990
to date the Court does not consider it would be judicious to
recommend a return to thirty-seven and a half hour working
week at this stage.
The Court, therefore, decides that a further review of the
issue be carried out (by the Court if necessary) in December,
1998.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th January, 1996 Evelyn Owens
L.W./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.