Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86731 Case Number: AD86102 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NOONAN CLEANING LTD - and - FWUI |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation regarding a paid tea-break.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
12th December, 1986 ---------------
P.F./U.S. Chairman
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD 86731 THE LABOUR COURT AD102/86
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DECISION NO. AD102/86
Parties: NOONAN CLEANING LTD
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation regarding a paid tea-break.
Background:
2. There are five workers involved in this dispute who are
employed by the Company at the Mater Hospital. They work
different hours to other cleaners at the hospital. Their hours
are as follows:-
7.00 - 8.00 - casualty
8.00 - 10.00 - other areas
10.00 - 10.30 - unpaid meal break
10.30 - 12.00 - various areas.
The Union claimed that the workers should be paid for their
tea-break. Negotiations took place at local level, but agreement
was not reached. Accordingly the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation, who issued the following
recommendation on 3rd July, 1986:-
"A paid meal break was not part of the Agreement made
between Company and Union at the commencement of the
contract so in my opinion both parties remain bound
by the terms of that Agreement for its duration.
Accordingly a paid meal break cannot be introduced
even for the five people."
On 15th September, 1986 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court. A Court
hearing took place on 4th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Prior to the present Company taking over the contract,
the workers enjoyed a paid tea-break. Only the
contractor has changed, and therefore the workers
should still enjoy a paid tea break.
(ii) When this Comapny took over the contract the hours
agreed for these workers were 8.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.
with no break. The extension of the hours of work
warrants a paid tea break, especially since the extra
time was introduced at the behest of Management.
(iii) It is recognised that tea breaks are paid for by the
employer to employees who work this pattern of hours.
Most other reputable Contract Cleaners allow paid
breaks.
(iv) The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation did not
take into account the fact that in the case of the
workers concerned the contract hours were changed by
Management. Furthermore, the Company has since 3rd
July, 1986, negotiated a new contract with its clients.
Since the Union made it clear that it was proceeding
with its claim, the Company should have made provision
to allow for paid tea breaks.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company has argued throughout all discussions
concerning this matter that it is not normal practice
for people working the hours involved regardless of
what time they start, to have a paid tea-break during
that period. In support of this contention Management
would point out that when they negotiated the contract
in the Mater Hospital no allowance was made for
tea-breaks to be taken by the staff taking into account
the duration of time. Obviously, to include such after
negotiating a set contract would be inadvisable on the
part of the Company, and it is clearly the case that
it would not be able to recoup the money from its
client.
(b) If the Company were to concede this claim to the five
staff employed in the Hospital then they would have a
serious problem with the remaining seventy staff who
would also seek a similar concession.
(c) The Union side has failed to demonstrate that it is
normal practice for workers employed for the hours
involved to be afforded a tea-break, as is the Union's
contention.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
12th December, 1986 ---------------
P.F./U.S. Chairman