FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ATLAS ALUMINIUM (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 716/97
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is based in Limerick, was established in 1981 and currently employs a staff of 230. It is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and zinc pressure die casting. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of a production operator arising from difficulties he has experienced in taking short periods, typically an hour, of time off. In early 1990, agreement was reached by the Company and the Union on the matter of a 39-hour week whereby staff would work 40 hours per week in place of 39 hours and would receive 6 days' additional leave in lieu of the additional hours worked each. The Union claims that the worker in question should be permitted to take short periods of time off, without having to work up the time, on the grounds that he had already worked up the time as part of the arrangements for the 39-hour week. The Company responded that a claim to take short periods of time off in the form of hours of the worker's choice, without working back the time, was unrealistic and could not be entertained given the Company's commitments to its customers. The Company added that it had been flexible in granting days off and tried to facilitate all requests for time off, even half days, provided proper notification was given and there was no operational reason for refusing. The matter was the subject of investigation by a Rights Commissioner who found that the arrangements at the Company for the taking of the different types of leave were reasonable and fair, provided the flexible approach described by the Company does exist. He recommended that the Company and the Union should formally agree that the current arrangements for the taking of leave should stand and that the Company should confirm that it will undertake to adopt as flexible an approach as possible in the area.
The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court, by the Union, on the 13th of January, 1998, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal, in Limerick, on the 24th of March, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dispute concerns all workers in the Company. It is not the Union's intention to seek to make fundamental changes to the Company's policy. However, the Company should recognise that the time off being sought by the workers is actually time they have already worked.
2. If the Company insists that the workers work up time they have taken off then they should be paid overtime for those hours. Alternatively, they should have the right to refuse to work back the time taken off.
3. The staff are entitled to a 39-hour week. The Union has made proposals to the Company which would guarantee that the workers would receive their proper entitlements and which would also facilitate the Company for production purposes
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms of reference governing the application of the 39-hour week were agreed with the Union following extensive negotiations. It was agreed that employees would continue to work a 40-hour week and receive the benefit of six days in lieu, accordingly. The Company has been more than flexible in granting employees time off in lieu in the form of days and even half days in some cases. There is not any way that a company in the die casting business with demanding commitments to its customers can allow a situation to develop whereby employees can be allowed to take such time off in the form of hours as they so desire.
2. The knock-on implications of acceding to this type of claim would result in the Company not being able to service its customers requirements in accordance with stipulated deadlines. The Company, for example, supplies product to the automobile industry which is an industry which requires first class reliable service on a timely basis. The Company has already invested heavily in plant and machinery and has moved towards World Class Manufacturing methods of continuous improvement in production. Given the Company's size and its ongoing commitments to its customers, this claim cannot realistically be accommodated in what is a very competitive business environment.
The Programme for National Recovery (PNR) provided in principle for a reduction in weekly working hours for employees working 40 hours per week or more to 39 hours per week.
Clause 7 of the PNR clearly states that "any developments in this area would have to regard to the cost involved, the implications for competitiveness, the need for flexibility, the effect on production and services, the effect on jobs and the public finances and the exigencies of the work involved."
This claim is in clear breach of both the spirit and terms of the PNR with specific reference to the application of the 39-hour week.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all the evidence presented, finds no reason to change the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
22nd April, 1998______________________
M.K./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.