FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABBOTT IRELAND LIMITED - COOTEHILL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1.
Introduction of 38 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, USA. There are five Abbott manufacturing plants in Ireland. The dispute concerns Abbott Ireland, Cootehill which manufactures infant nutritional products and employs 117 people. The Company sources its raw materials - skim milk, lactose, oils, cans and packaging - locally.
In 1991, as part of a Company/Union agreement, the Company reduced the working week from 40 hours to 39 hours. In 1993, a new 5 year agreement was negotiated. Part of this agreement involved reducing the 39 hours to 38 hours. The change was to take effect on the 1st of June, 1997. The dispute concerns 20 process operators who work continuous 12-hour shifts (5 workers per shift). When the working week reduced from 40 to 39 hours, the majority of the workers took an hour off on Friday evening. The 20 process workers took off 4 hours, without cover, accumulated every 4 weeks. In the present situation, the process workers wish to take the extra hours as additional annual leave in the form of six 8-hour days or four 12-hour shifts. This would involve cover being provided by way of overtime or, if possible, a spare worker. The Company wants all the workers, including the process operators, to use the same formula as applied in 1991. The Company is also insisting that the change must not be cost-increasing.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 22nd of October, 1997. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of December, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of March, 1998, in Cavan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During discussion for the new 5 year agreement, the Company did not make clear that the 1991 formula for taking the extra hour off would apply to the 1993 agreement regarding the 38 hour week. There is no reference in the 1993 agreement to the introducion of the 38 hour week on a non cost-increasing basis. All workers, bar the 20 involved, finish at definite times and so it is easy to take the hour off. Taking the accumulated time off in 8 hour days or 12 hour shifts would be of much greater advantage to the process operators. One hour taken off a 12 hour shift is of little or no advantage. There is no arrangement to cover members who would take off the last hour or 4 hours as the case may be.
2. The Company's proposal will mean an increased workload for the process operators. Milk intake will increase from 8 to 12 loads per day. Process operators will increasingly be left on their own in areas where there could be danger to workers. The floor area covered by the drying and evaporating process has greatly increased. The cost of overtime on a replacement basis would be no more than £15,000 per annum.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was made very clear during discussions on the new 5 year plan that there could be no increased costs. Everything conceded (including the 38 hour week) must be financed from increased productivity. The hour reduction for all groups was to be on the same basis as the 1991 agreement. All workers except the process operators have agreed to this. This includes two groups who operate 12 hour shifts similar to the process operators.
2. The Company is involved in a very competitive business. It has recently received a $23 million dollar investment from its parent company in the U.S. The current situation with the process operators is a cause of embarrassment with the U.S. parent company. Part of the 5 year plan involved one extra day's annual leave for all workers. The process workers have three additional day's annual leave due to shift working. Conceding the Union's request would cost the Company £15,000 and would have a knock-on effect from other groups.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties. The Court recommends that the Company's arrangement on how the reduction from 39 hours to 38 hours be introduced for this group of workers should be accepted, and reviewed by the parties after 12 months.
However, during this period the situation should be monitored to take into account the concerns expressed by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th March, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.