Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87513 Case Number: LCR11371 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LYDON HOUSE - and - BFWAU |
Compensation for a revision in working arrangements.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87513 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11371
CC861215 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11371
Parties: LYDON HOUSE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
THE BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION
Subject:
1. Compensation for a revision in working arrangements.
Background:
2. The Company is involved in the bakery business in Galway. For
some years the normal starting time on night shift in the bakery
had been 11 pm. Special payments were made for starting earlier.
In order to make itself more competitive in the market place, the
Company sought to have the bakers commence work at an earlier
starting time. Agreement was reached at local level by increasing
the shift premium from 25% to 33 1/3%. The new starting times
were as follows:
Monday to Friday 10.00 p.m.
Sunday 9.00 p.m.
Payment between 9.00 p.m. to 12 midnight was at double time on
Sundays and thereafter at flat time. The arrangement prior to
this was:
Monday through Thursday 11.00 p.m.
Friday 10.00 p.m.
Sunday 9.00 p.m.
Payment between 9.00 and 12 midnight on Sunday was the same as the
new arrangements. The arrangements were for a trial period of 4
months. On 30th June, 1986, the Company received a letter from
the Union with a number of claims (copy with the Labour Court).
As agreement could not be reached at local level, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court in July,
1986. A conciliation conference took place on 24th July, 1986.
Subsequent to the conference, an agreement was reached on the
following terms:
1. New starting time 10 p.m.
2. Restoration of 33 1/3% differential back-dated to 13th
July, 1986.
3. #300 lump sum compensation plus #100 as a gesture of
goodwill subject to the Union taking a claim of 5 per
cent of basic to the Labour Court.
4. 9 p.m. start on Sundays and Fridays. Double time to be
paid for Sunday working to midnight. Time and a half
for each hour worked before 10 p.m. during week days.
Bank holiday payments as per Sunday. If bakers work
nine hours or more per day they will be paid double
time.
5. From the first week-end in July to the last week-end in
August a 9 p.m. starting time will apply as required.
6. Management to notify staff not later than the Friday
morning of the times required for the next week's
working.
7. Normal pre-festival starting times to continue with the
above rates to apply.
8. If a 9 p.m. start is required on other limited
occasions the conditions outlined above to apply also.
9. The baking of fancy bread to a maximum of 12 racks is
agreed. This is in addition to the usual one rack of
ducks, etc.
The claim before the Court is for an increase of 5%, what the
Union are terming call out pay.
The issue was the subject of unsuccessful local discussions. On
3rd June, 1987, a conciliation conference took place on the matter
but agreement was not reached. On 25th June, 1987, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Galway on 21st July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Unions' case is that a payment of 5% should be paid
to the workers who are required to commence work one
hour earlier than their agreed starting time.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company wishes to draw the attention of the Court
to the fact that a shift premium of 33 1/3%is already
being paid. An extra 5% on top of this is now being
claimed. The claim has been the subject of discussions
both at local level and at conciliation, and has been
rejected by the Company.
(b) If the claim were conceded, there would be
repercussions across the whole spectrum of the
company's activities. There would also be national
implications for the bakery industry generally. The
Company therefore respectfully requests the Court to
reject the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman
27th August, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.
CD87513 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11371
CC861215 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11371
Parties: LYDON HOUSE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
THE BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS' AMALGAMATED UNION
Subject:
1. Compensation for a revision in working arrangements.
Background:
2. The Company is involved in the bakery business in Galway. For
some years the normal starting time on night shift in the bakery
had been 11 pm. Special payments were made for starting earlier.
In order to make itself more competitive in the market place, the
Company sought to have the bakers commence work at an earlier
starting time. Agreement was reached at local level by increasing
the shift premium from 25% to 33 1/3%. The new starting times
were as follows:
Monday to Friday 10.00 p.m.
Sunday 9.00 p.m.
Payment between 9.00 p.m. to 12 midnight was at double time on
Sundays and thereafter at flat time. The arrangement prior to
this was:
Monday through Thursday 11.00 p.m.
Friday 10.00 p.m.
Sunday 9.00 p.m.
Payment between 9.00 and 12 midnight on Sunday was the same as the
new arrangements. The arrangements were for a trial period of 4
months. On 30th June, 1986, the Company received a letter from
the Union with a number of claims (copy with the Labour Court).
As agreement could not be reached at local level, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court in July,
1986. A conciliation conference took place on 24th July, 1986.
Subsequent to the conference, an agreement was reached on the
following terms:
1. New starting time 10 p.m.
2. Restoration of 33 1/3% differential back-dated to 13th
July, 1986.
3. #300 lump sum compensation plus #100 as a gesture of
goodwill subject to the Union taking a claim of 5 per
cent of basic to the Labour Court.
4. 9 p.m. start on Sundays and Fridays. Double time to be
paid for Sunday working to midnight. Time and a half
for each hour worked before 10 p.m. during week days.
Bank holiday payments as per Sunday. If bakers work
nine hours or more per day they will be paid double
time.
5. From the first week-end in July to the last week-end in
August a 9 p.m. starting time will apply as required.
6. Management to notify staff not later than the Friday
morning of the times required for the next week's
working.
7. Normal pre-festival starting times to continue with the
above rates to apply.
8. If a 9 p.m. start is required on other limited
occasions the conditions outlined above to apply also.
9. The baking of fancy bread to a maximum of 12 racks is
agreed. This is in addition to the usual one rack of
ducks, etc.
The claim before the Court is for an increase of 5%, what the
Union are terming call out pay.
The issue was the subject of unsuccessful local discussions. On
3rd June, 1987, a conciliation conference took place on the matter
but agreement was not reached. On 25th June, 1987, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place in Galway on 21st July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Unions' case is that a payment of 5% should be paid
to the workers who are required to commence work one
hour earlier than their agreed starting time.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company wishes to draw the attention of the Court
to the fact that a shift premium of 33 1/3%is already
being paid. An extra 5% on top of this is now being
claimed. The claim has been the subject of discussions
both at local level and at conciliation, and has been
rejected by the Company.
(b) If the claim were conceded, there would be
repercussions across the whole spectrum of the
company's activities. There would also be national
implications for the bakery industry generally. The
Company therefore respectfully requests the Court to
reject the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman
27th August, 1987
T.O'M./J.C.