FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERFORD CRYSTAL - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR15057.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves the operation of the thirty-nine hour working week. The Union is seeking a return to a thirty-seven and a half hour operation.
The case was before the Court on the 14th of December, 1995. In its Recommendation LCR15057, which issued on the 10th of January, 1996, the Court recommended 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."
The Union states that the Company has refused to consider a review of the thirty-nine hour working week which was provided for under LCR15057.
The Company rejects the Union's claim and states that it has been in discussions with the Union over a number of meetings on this matter. The Company indicated to the Union that because of cost and competitiveness, vis-�-vis its competitors, it was not in a position to reduce the agreed thirty-nine hour working week.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th of October, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since LCR15057 was issued in 1995 the Company has substantially increased its profits. It should now revert back to a thirty-seven and a half hour working week.
2. Despite a reduction in the working week for shift workers to 33.6 hours productivity has actually risen by 38%.
3. The trading position of the Company has improved significantly since the introduction of the thirty-nine hour week. It is now in a financial position to concede this claim.
4. The Union does not accept that a return to a thirty-seven and a half hour working week would adversely affect the profitability of the Company
5. The workers have contributed substantially to the success of the Company over the past ten years. They now want to revert back to a thirty-seven and a half hour working week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1993 Cost Improvement Agreement copperfastened the thirty-nine hour working week for all employees. It contributed to the survival of the Company and made it more competitive.
2. A reversal of the thirty-nine hour week would cost the Company £2.7 million per annum which would be unsustainable.
3. The external competitive environment is more aggressive now than at any time in the Company's history.
4. The labour costs of East European producers are less than 15% of total costs of production. The Company's costs are running at 50% of the total costs of production.
5. The measures put in place during the 1990's were the minimum required to save the Company from closure and to secure a better future for all concerned. Competitiveness is not a once-off achievement, but a continuous challenge.
RECOMMENDATION:
Disagreement exists between the parties as to whether the agreement entered into to move to a 39-hour working is a permanent position or one open to review.
The Company argued that the 1993 agreement and subsequent Labour Court Recommendations were based on the premise that all outstanding issues had been resolved in the 1993 agreement with two exceptions; the 39-hour week not being one of them.
However, the Company management did accept at the hearing that subsequent to the 1993 agreement it had agreed with the Union claim that the 39-hour week issue was still on the table, in addition to the two other identified items.
The Recommendation issued by the Court (LCR15057) in January, 1996 indicated “that the Court is satisfied that under the terms of the ARB1/90 the Union is entitled to seek a review of the 39-hour week”.
At this hearing the Company argued that the financial figures for the Company while improving were still a source of worry given the competitive nature of the business and particularly the fact that a large proportion of the production was being out-sourced outside the Waterford plant. This raised major concerns for any increase in cost affecting production in Waterford.
Having considered all the information before it the Court is still of the view that this is an issue subject to review, but it must be discussed in the context of the environment in which the Company operates. It is important not to create a situation where jobs are put at risk, given the significant progress that has been made by all involved in the Company.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the issue be reviewed at the end of the year 2000 or alternatively in the context of any other negotiations that might arise in the meantime.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th November, 1999______________________
L.W./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.