Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88797 Case Number: LCR12177 Section / Act: S67 Parties: NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claims on behalf of 3 canteen assistants for: (a) payment of 110% bonus performance, (b) compensation for continuous working and (c) provision of subsidised training courses.
Recommendation:
15. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that by reason of the small
numbers in the group the canteen staff are through no fault of
their own, deprived of the opportunity of obtaining 110% bonus.
The Court therefore recommends that provided the workers concerned
undertake to co-operate in any future changes in the canteen
operation or equipment they should be paid the 110% bonus without
further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88797 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12177
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of 3 canteen assistants for:
(a) payment of 110% bonus performance,
(b) compensation for continuous working and
(c) provision of subsidised training courses.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of
a variety of food products and employs approximately 200 people at
its plant in Tallaght.
3. The canteen services the meal and snack requirements of up to
200 employees. Approximately 120 of these are industrial, engaged
in the production, transport and warehouse departments and are on
site for all or part of each working day. There is a system of
staggered breaks (to allow continuous production) which are taken
in the canteen. These commence at 9.45 a.m. and continue until
11.15 a.m. lunch breaks are from 12.30 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. after
which the canteen is cleared, cleaned and preparation work is done
for the following day.
Claim A: Payment of 110% bonus performance
BACKGROUND:
4. Upon the acceptance of a 1984 productivity agreement all bonus
performances throughout the factory were frozen at an agreed
average and any future cost increasing claims would only be
conceded if they were self financing. At present the canteen
assistants work a 40 hour week at a current rate of #175.62 plus a
bonus performance of 103% which amounts to #5.27 a week.
5. In May, 1988 following lengthy negotiations the Company
offered to put the canteen staff on 110% bonus performance (#12 a
week extra approx) provided that in the event of one assistant
being absent there would be no replacement in the Department.
However during the month of June one of the canteen assistants was
absent. The other two assistants endeavoured to cope but could
not do so. Eventually another worker was brought in to cover for
the absent assistant.
6. The Company removed the 110% bonus from the workers concerned
and placed them back on the 103%. The Unions objected to this and
the matter along with the other two issues was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 25th August, 1988. A
conciliation conference was held on 11th October, 1988. As no
agreement was possible both parties consented to a referral to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 11th November, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company have argued that any improvement in bonus
would have to be on a self-financing basis. Our response has
been that the canteen members have, indeed, given productivity
to the Company which has not been rewarded. Some 2/3 years
ago the canteen were obliged to introduce fresh meals and
these required a great deal more work in preparation and
actual cooking of food.
2. The Company have asserted that they do not have a policy
of holding back employees from achieving higher earnings
available. But that is precisely what they have done in
refusing to recognise that extra productivity has been given
for some considerable time now. They have also stated that
they can see how the canteen members might have a grievance
but asserted that indirect schemes are always more difficult
to apply. That well may be the case in other companies but,
at Nestle, there is a well defined and well utilised scheme.
What is missing in this case is the managerial will to
implement the improvement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The offer of 110% bonus performance is still available
subject to the condition that the canteen assistants would
cover for their own absenteeism. The proposal resulting in
operating the canteen with a reduced crew level will require
the remaining operatives to raise their performance. This
with the right attitude being adopted, the Company believes
can been achieved.
2. Increased bonus earnings have already being applied in
other areas but these have all being achieved on a
self-financing basis. The same criteria will have to apply
for an increase in bonus to the canteen assistants. The
Company requests the Court to recommend that the canteen
assistants adopt the Company's proposal for a reasonable time
period.
Claim B: Compensation for continuous working
BACKGROUND:
9. Prior to the 1984 Productivity Agreement certain production
lines closed down for lunch and the workers involved went to lunch
together. The 1984 Agreement provided for continuous production
on these lines which meant that the workers concerned had to
stagger their lunch breaks. In return they received and extra 1.25
hours pay a week. The Unions' are seeking to have a similar
payment made to the canteen assistants.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company have argued that as no change occurred in the
meal times allocated to canteen members, they could not be
compensated. We argue that these members have to be a lot
more flexible during their meal breaks and often have to
disrupt them to bring the flow of fresh cooked food up to
demands. Their co-operation and flexibility should be
rewarded on the same basis as everybody else.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. The canteen assistants have since 1975 had their lunch break
from either 12 noon to 12.30 p.m. or from 2.00 p.m. to 2.30
p.m. This is a condition of employment and is still
operating. Therefore there is no justification for this claim
as there is no disruption to their lunch break.
Claim C: Provision of subsidised training course
BACKGROUND:
12. The Union is seeking from the Company a subsidy for training
of canteen assistant No 1 to the level of relief cook/supervisor.
The canteen assistant No 1 is undertaking this course at present
at her own expense.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
13. 1. The canteen members have shown themselves keen and wiling
to avail of training. The present Cook/Supervisor has
completed a 2 year diploma course, subsidised by the Company.
The canteen assistant No. 1 is currently undertaking the same
course at her own expense. She deputises for the
cook/supervisor in her absence. The Unions are seeking some
support towards the cost of this course.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
14. 1. The Company's policy on training is that if there is a
need or a requirement for specialist training, there will be
no hesitation in arranging a suitable course.
RECOMMENDATION:
15. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that by reason of the small
numbers in the group the canteen staff are through no fault of
their own, deprived of the opportunity of obtaining 110% bonus.
The Court therefore recommends that provided the workers concerned
undertake to co-operate in any future changes in the canteen
operation or equipment they should be paid the 110% bonus without
further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
16th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.