Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95698 Case Number: LCR15147 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NYPRO LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(i) Application of the 39-hour week. (ii) No-Smoking Policy.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, recommends as
follows:-
1. 39-Hour Week
The Agreement as interpreted by the Company should be
continued for the present. However, it is the view of the
Court that this situation is not sustainable in the long term
and contrary to the spirit and intent of the terms of the
P.N.R. The parties should further discuss the matter with a
view to reaching an agreement which will give time off in the
future.
The parties should endeavour to deal with this matter
expeditiously.
2. No-Smoking Policy
The Court considers that the Company should give such
assistance as may be necessary to employees seeking
counselling. With regard to smoking facilities, the
arrangements put in place should be accepted.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95698 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15147
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NYPRO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (i) Application of the 39-hour week.
(ii) No-Smoking Policy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a contract injection moulding shop, based in
Bray. It employs approximately 260 workers, the majority of
whom are represented by the Union.
(i) Application of 39-hour week.
The Company/Union Agreement allows for the accrual of
time-off as the method of introducing the 39 hour
week. Workers can accrue 48 hours, which results in 6
days off. If, due to production needs, employees have
to work the accrued days, payment in lieu of the
accrued time is at the rate of time and one half for
day workers. Shift workers are paid at shift rates.
In May, 1995, the Company proposed to the Union
(details supplied to the Court) that because of
customers demands, the taking of days off for accrued
time was no longer viable. The Union objected to the
proposals on the grounds that (a) it abolished the
principle of reduced working time and (b) shift
workers would be responsible for getting their own
cover.
(ii) No-Smoking Policy.
Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR12601, issued in
1989, recommended that smoking be restricted to the
canteen and toilet facilities, provided that there was
no abuse of this facility. Since 1989, the Company
has required that all new employees accept that there
is a no-smoking policy in practice in the plant.
The Company maintains that, due to customer demand and
complaints from non-smokers in the Company, it will
have to introduce a total ban on smoking in the plant.
Smokers will have the use of an office located outside
the plant. The Union is seeking that the terms of
LCR12601 be upheld.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and two conciliation conferences were held on 26th September,
1995 and 13th October, 1995. There was no agreement reached
between the parties and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 13th December, 1995, in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 1st April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. (i) Application of the 39-hour week.
1. The principle of the 39-hour week was to give
greater rest time to workers. If the Company's
production requirements means working 24 hour days,
7 days a week, this can be met by either recruiting
additional workers or getting staff to work part of
their accrued time on a voluntary basis. This
system was successful in the past.
2. In return for accepting the 39-hour week workers
had to forego all shift breaks (with the exception
of a 30-minute paid meal break), and accept a
degree of mandatory overtime.
(ii) No-Smoking Policy.
1. The issue regarding smoking was already dealt with
in LCR12601. There was no abuse of the facility as
agreed by the Union. Since 1990, new staff have
agreed to a non-smoking policy. In time, through
resignations and retirements, the dispute will
cease to exist.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. (i) Application of the 39-hour week.
1. At the time of the Company/Union Agreement, a 5
day week, 24 hour day was sufficient for the
Company's production needs. Now, because of an
expansion of business the Company is required to
operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Clause 5 of
the Agreement states that, if customers
requirements have to be met, employees will work
some or all of their accrued time. Attempts by the
Company to find volunteers to work holiday and
accrued time in the past have proved largely
unsuccessful. Because of the greater skill now
required for the more complex work involved, the
Company can no longer rely on volunteers, who may
not have the necessary skills.
(ii) No-Smoking Policy.
1. There have been a number of complaints made by
non-smoking staff about the health risks involved
for passive smokers. The Company's insurance
company has instructed the Company to introduce a
non-smoking policy as part of its insurance
criteria. Some of the Company's customers are
involved in the health care market and have
required the Company to adopt a non-smoking policy
in line with their own.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, recommends as
follows:-
1. 39-Hour Week
The Agreement as interpreted by the Company should be
continued for the present. However, it is the view of the
Court that this situation is not sustainable in the long term
and contrary to the spirit and intent of the terms of the
P.N.R. The parties should further discuss the matter with a
view to reaching an agreement which will give time off in the
future.
The parties should endeavour to deal with this matter
expeditiously.
2. No-Smoking Policy
The Court considers that the Company should give such
assistance as may be necessary to employees seeking
counselling. With regard to smoking facilities, the
arrangements put in place should be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th April, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.