Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD96147 Case Number: LCR15155 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NEODATA SERVICES LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE |
Annual leave allocation.
Recommendation:
Given the experience of the Company in recent years, the Court is
fully cognisant of the extent of the co-operation given by the
staff in seeking to secure the future of the Company and
employment.
It is the view of the Court that if this position is to be
consolidated, there is a need to ensure the work currently
available is carried out in the most efficient and cost-effective
way.
Accordingly, given the above, the Court recommends that the
vacation schedule for 1996 as proposed by the Company be accepted.
The Company for their part should ensure management are fully
aware of the arrangements in respect of floating and emergency
days, and in regard to these arrangements should co-operate with
the staff in ensuring that the schedule is operated as flexibly as
possible.
The parties should review the vacation schedule at the end of
1996, particularly in the light of contracts agreed.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD96147 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15155
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NEODATA SERVICES LIMITED
AND
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Annual leave allocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a direct marketing services company and is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Neodata Services Inc. of America.
It is situated in Listowel. It employs approximately 120
full-time workers, 90 of whom are represented by the Union.
The workforce is 100% female. It also employs a number of
temporary workers at peak periods during the year. Following
restructuring over the last few years, the Company is now
confined to a single contract. The nature of the work is
seasonal.
The Company maintains that the 1996 forecast required it to
plan 2 seasonal peak periods - from mid April to mid June and
from mid September to the end of November. The dispute
concerns the annual leave arrangements for the permanent
staff, particularly during the peak periods. In January,
1996, the Company proposed the following leave arrangements
for the year - 1 week in February, 2 weeks in the period
July-September and 1 week in December during plant shutdown.
No leave was to be granted during the peak periods. The
Union objected, claiming that the system was too rigid. The
main issue in contention was in regards to the amount of
staff who could take leave in the 3rd week in September,
Listowel race week. Following a meeting, the Company
proposed that 10% of staff could take leave during race week.
The Union is seeking 15%. The Union is also seeking that 5%
of staff can take leave during the peak periods.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 3rd April, 1996.
There was no agreement reached between the parties and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 4th April, 1996,
in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th April,
1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is not necessary for a complete elimination of
holiday entitlement for the peak periods. The Union is
only seeking that a maximum of 5% of the workforce can
take leave. The actual number will probably be less
than 5%. On a social level, Race Week is the busiest
week of the year in Listowel, and affects all
businesses. The Union is willing to consider any
carry-over arrangements to achieve a 15% entitlement of
leave for the week.
2. The Union has co-operated at all times with the changes
that the Company has introduced. What the Union is
seeking is not excessive compared to the changes agreed.
The Company is seeking to introduce its proposals
unilaterally. It has the option of using temporary
staff, many of whom are former employees with the same
level of experience as permanent employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's current contract is for one year. If the
Company is to get the 3 years contract which it is
seeking, it will have to meet the production standards
required of it by the contract. To do this the Company
must utilise the full complement of permanent employees
during the 2 peak periods, as well as a large number of
temporary workers. The productivity rate of the
temporary workers is considerably below that of the
permanent employees.
2. The Company has undergone considerable restructuring in
the last few years, which included the closing of
offices in Newcastlewest and Kilmallock. The main
reason for the closures was that the Company did not
have sufficient permanent workers to cover the peak
periods. Failure to fulfil the contract this year could
lead to the U.S. parent company closing the plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the experience of the Company in recent years, the Court is
fully cognisant of the extent of the co-operation given by the
staff in seeking to secure the future of the Company and
employment.
It is the view of the Court that if this position is to be
consolidated, there is a need to ensure the work currently
available is carried out in the most efficient and cost-effective
way.
Accordingly, given the above, the Court recommends that the
vacation schedule for 1996 as proposed by the Company be accepted.
The Company for their part should ensure management are fully
aware of the arrangements in respect of floating and emergency
days, and in regard to these arrangements should co-operate with
the staff in ensuring that the schedule is operated as flexibly as
possible.
The parties should review the vacation schedule at the end of
1996, particularly in the light of contracts agreed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th 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.