Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87433 Case Number: LCR11318 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CADBURYS LTD - and - ATGWU;FWUI |
The introduction of staggered lunch breaks for approximately 114 operatives arising from the introduction of continuous production through lunch time in "C block".
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the proposed staggering of lunch
breaks in C Block and the continuous running of plant during these
breaks is in conformity with the provisions of the Company/Union
Agreements - particularly the provisions relating to change,
flexibility and mobility and maximum plant running time. The
Court has noted, in addition, the provision of the Agreement which
sets out the manner in which workers will benefit from
productivity arising from on-going change and assumes that the new
arrangements will be so evaluated in the course of negotiations on
the next wage round.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the unions accept the
changes proposed by management on this basis.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87433 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11318
CC87774 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11318
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. The introduction of staggered lunch breaks for approximately
114 operatives arising from the introduction of continuous
production through lunch time in "C block".
Background:
2. At present production ceases in C block during a forty minute
lunch break from 12.25 p.m. to 13.05 p.m. (30 minutes unpaid break
plus 10 minutes travelling time). The Company, in May, 1987,
proposed to keep production running during lunch break and to
introduce staggered unpaid lunch breaks between midday and
13.20 p.m. The Unions indicated that their preference was to
retain the existing arrangements. However, if the proposed new
arrangements are to be introduced, they sought monetary
compensation in the form of a paid lunch break. The Company was
not prepared to concede the claim and the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 13th May, 1987. A
conciliation conference was held on 18th May, 1987. No agreement
was reached, however, and the matter was referred to a full
hearing of the Labour Court The hearing took place on 26th June,
1987.
Union's argument:
3. (i) The Operating Agreement provides for "on-going
changes" without additional special payments. The
Company contends that the introduction of staggered
lunch breaks falls within this Clause. The Union,
however, disputes this. It considers that the Clause
relates to such matters as the introduction of new
machines or new machine speeds, not to matters such as
lunch breaks.
(ii) The Union is not opposed in principle to increasing
production. However, it is not satisfied with the
manner of the introduction of the change. The
introduction of this change on day shift in C Block
without any compensation to the workers may be the
beginning of similar change elsewhere.
(iii) In other employments where staggered lunch breaks have
been introduced monetary compensation has been made in
the form of paid breaks (details supplied). This is
particularly so in instances where production is
increased and costs reduced, as in this case.
(iv) The Company is in a healthy financial position.
(v) The existence of staggered lunch breaks elsewhere on
site is not relevant since, in these instances,
special relief workers take over production. This
would not be the case in C Block.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The present situation gives rise to a loss of 40
minutes production running time per shift amounting to
6% loss of production running time in total and
inefficiencies arising from having to stop and restart
the plant. All proposed changes in break times are
less than one hour and over half the employees are
being asked to change the time of their lunch break by
only 10-15 minutes. The Company has invested #.50m in
the introduction of totally updated and improved
canteen facilities.
(b) This claim is contrary to the agreed method of dealing
with change, as outlined in an Agreement concerning
the introduction of changes which states:-
"No additional special payments will be made to the
individuals involved in the changes as it is
intended that all employees should benefit from
productivity in the form of high rates of pay and
better conditions of employment".
This method of dealing with change is common to all
groups across the site and has been used since it was
introduced in 1976. All employees have significantly
benefited from this approach since its introduction.
(c) In drawing up the Operating Agreement with the Unions,
a number of requirements were set down which were seen
as essential for the efficient running of the factory.
Running through breaks is specifically provided for as
follows:
"An understanding and commitment are required to the
necessity for maximum plant running time to reduce
costs and improve competitiveness. This involves
the continuing acceptance of items as:
Agreement to running certain layouts and machines
through break and lunch if necessary .."
Under the heading "Flexibility and Mobility" the
Agreement requires:
"An acceptance of the need to change starting time,
break and lunch times as required to suit the
requirements of a particular plant or process,
subject to full consultation and notice of the
change.
(d) The Company's viability is totally dependent on its
ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness.
The proposed change is designed to ensure the
viability of the Flake product and the future of the
jobs that are dependent on it. Any lessening of the
Company's ability to introduce necessary change as
quickly as possible will severely affect
competitiveness and will ultimately affect the total
viability of the business.
(e) The Company does not accept that there is any reason
for treating day employees differently to shift
employees in relation to the introduction of change.
The conditions for day employment were drawn up and
agreed with all Unions on site. If the Company were
to alter one of the basic conditions of day
employment, for a section of this group, it would
ultimately knock on to all other day employees. This,
in turn, would distort the earnings relativities with
other shift groupings and result in a major increase
in costs.
(f) Staggered lunch breaks have been introduced on the day
shift, on other plant across the site, and no
individual compensation was paid.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that the proposed staggering of lunch
breaks in C Block and the continuous running of plant during these
breaks is in conformity with the provisions of the Company/Union
Agreements - particularly the provisions relating to change,
flexibility and mobility and maximum plant running time. The
Court has noted, in addition, the provision of the Agreement which
sets out the manner in which workers will benefit from
productivity arising from on-going change and assumes that the new
arrangements will be so evaluated in the course of negotiations on
the next wage round.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the unions accept the
changes proposed by management on this basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman