Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8724 Case Number: AD8730 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CIE - and - NATE |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW196/86 concerning an application for a second meal break for a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8724 THE LABOUR COURT AD30/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 30 OF 1987
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES
Subject:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW196/86
concerning an application for a second meal break for a worker.
Background:
2. The worker is one of a group of panel drivers operating eight
schedule services distributing the national daily newspapers on a
national basis from Broadstone depot. This service operates six
nights a week, and the worker concerned is on the Waterford
service route. He signs on for duty at 12 o'clock midnight and
his scheduled running time is 11 hours plus .50 hour for a meal
break. If for any reason (i.e. bad weather, breakdown, etc.,) the
worker's turn of duty exceeds 12 hours he receives a second meal
allowance. The Union claimed the second meal allowance for the
worker irrespective of whether or not his turn of duty exceeded 12
hours. This was rejected by the Company and the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 22nd December, 1986 after an investigation the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation "I
recommend that the worker accepts that he has no entitlement to a
second meal break unless he meets the present requirements
regarding time on duty."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on 5th
January, 1987 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard of the appeal on 19th February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker concerned assists with the loading of the
lorry and leaves the depot usually at 3 a.m. He does
not get a break until he reaches Waterford. Under the
circumstances it is not unreasonable to expect a second
break on the return journey.
(b) The worker has a tight schedules to meet. Because of
the nature of the contracts the Company has with the
newspapers companies it is imperative that the papers
are delivered on time. Any delays could result in the
Company losing this business. The workers efforts in
keeping to these tight schedules should be recognised
by the Company in giving him the second meal break.
(c) It does not say in any of the agreements national or
otherwise that a worker must be on duty for 12 hours or
more to qualify for a second break.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) In addition to basic and overtime rates the worker
receives the following payments (a) night rate, (b) a
meal allowance for a turn of duty up to 12 hours
duration and a second meal allowance where the duty
exceeds 12 hours (c) a productivity bonus at maximum
level and (d) a supplementary bonus to maintain the
service level where staff loading numbers fall below
the agreed levels. If the worker finishes within the
schedule, he is still paid according to the schedule,
if he goes over the schedule he is paid extra according
to his entitlement.
(ii) The Company rejects the claim for a second meal
allowance as the worker's schedule does not exceed 12
hours.
(iii) All payments can only be made in accordance with the
conditions negotiated between the Board and the trade
unions and any changes are negotiated at central level.
DECISION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
16th April, 1987 Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.