Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88746 Case Number: LCR12127 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claims for (a) the introduction of an afternoon tea break (b) consolidation of shift premium on overtime rates and (c) an improvement on the call out allowance.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) Afternoon Tea-Break:
9. The Court recommends that consideration of this claim be
deferred until early 1989.
Claim (b) Consolidation of Shift Premium:
The Court recommends concession of this claim. In return the
Union should agree with the Company to examine jointly anomalies
arising in the payment system with a view to reaching an agreement
on their removal.
Claim (c) Call-Out Payment:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer on this claim be
accepted.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88746 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12127
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MONAGHAN MUSHROOMS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for (a) the introduction of an afternoon tea break (b)
consolidation of shift premium on overtime rates and (c) an
improvement on the call out allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which was founded in 1981 is engaged in the
compost production mushroom growing and mushroom processing
business. It is Ireland's largest mushroom supplier and gives
employment in the Monaghan area both directly and indirectly to
720 people. There are 170 workers directly employed. The Company
exports all its output mainly to U.K. supermarket chains.
3. The Union lodged the claims for a 15 minute afternoon
tea-break on behalf of 39 workers employed in the compost yard,
the consolidation of shift premium on overtime rates (the shift
premium of 16.6% is paid on the afternoon shift and not the day
shift), and an improvement in the call out allowance. Presently
the Company pays a sum of #15 plus the appropriate overtime rate
to maintenance workers who are called out. The Union sought to
have the call out allowance increased to #20 plus hours worked and
also where a worker is called out in the 8 hour period preceeding
his normal start time he should be allowed a gap of 8 hours,
without loss, before his normal start.
4. The Company rejected the claims and the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 19th July, 1988.
Conciliation conferences were held on 31st August, and 27th
September, 1988. During the course of the conferences the Company
put forward the following proposals:
(a) If new bagging equipment being installed by the Company
at the end of October, 1988 works to expected targets the
Company will positively look at an afternoon tea-break in
the compost yard; position to be reviewed on 1st January,
1989,
(b) The Company would agree to concede the claim for
consolidation of shift premium on overtime rates if the
Union agreed to rectify the anomaly whereby a worker who
works Saturday and Sunday as part of his/her normal 40
hour week is paid overtime for those days,
(c) The call out allowance would be #17.50 plus appropriate
overtime rate plus time off with pay for rest purposes
from normal start time equivalent to hours worked on call
out in the 8 hours preceding the normal start time.
The Union rejected (a) and (b) of the Company's proposals.
However both sides were agreeable on the formula for the call
out allowance but the Company were only prepared to implement
same on the basis of a package agreement on all three issues.
6. As no agreement was possible both parties consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation, a Court hearing was held in Monaghan on 26th
October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. All other sections in the Company enjoy an afternoon
tea-break except for the workers employed in the compost yard.
The Company has insisted that the plant should be considered
as one unit for pay negotiation purposes. This should also
extend to the question of the tea-break.
2. The Union can find no adequate reason as to why these
workers should not have an afternoon tea-break. The Company
have argued that these workers do not get a tea-break because
they are on a higher basic rate. Their argument does not hold
up as there are workers in other parts of the employment who
have the same rate and even higher. The Union contend that
the difference in pay rates is attributable to the bad
conditions prevailing in the compost yard.
3. The claim for the consolidation of shift premium for
overtime is one which the workers have shown great patience.
The payment of overtime on the consolidated rate is standard
practice in most employments and has been established in a
great number of Labour Court recommendations (details supplied
to the Court).
4. The shift working arrangement is very favourable for this
Company which pays 16.6% for afternoon shift and no payment
for day shift. That means that the rate would only apply to
one shift. The Union consider that the Company has been
unfair in not conceding the claim before now. The Court is
requested to recommend concession of same with effect from 1st
January, 1988.
5. The present call out arrangement mainly effects
maintenance personnel and while it was extended to cover all
workers, it would only be a rare occasion that anyone other
than a maintenance worker would be called out. The rate of
#15 has not altered for some years. Its value has obviously
been eroded and should be restored. The workers involved are
on permanent stand-by. The rewards, at least when called out,
should reflect more adequately the unselfish services rendered
to the Company by the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The other sections in the Company where an afternoon
tea-break applies are sections where the production process
would allow this without any adverse loss of production apart
from the actual time spent on the break. It is the Company's
view however that this would not be the case in the compost
yard. The granting of an afternoon tea-break would lead to a
serious loss of efficiency due to loss of time because of
wind-down and start up periods. It was for this reason that
the Company applied a higher rate to the compost yard workers.
2. The Company further considers that it is inappropriate to
deal with the issue of an afternoon tea-break at this time.
Deferment would allow the Company to assess the effects of
introducing new equipment into the compost yard over the
coming months. The inefficiency then may or may not be so
great. This could be assessed by 1st January, 1989.
3. The Company has consistently rejected the claim for
consolidation of shift premium for overtime on the basis of
both cost implications and the fact that many companies do not
apply consolidation for overtime. Given the erratic nature of
mushroom growing relatively high overtime working is an
unavoidable feature of the business. The Company is
attempting to bring overtime working to more acceptable levels
but given the nature of the product and process a degree of
uncertainty is unavoidable, necessitating overtime on a
regular basis. In any of the companies that do apply
consolidation this is unlikely to be the case.
4. In a gesture to resolve the issue the Company offered to
trade off consolidation in return for a serious anomaly in the
overtime area. As a result of the rapid development of the
Company a practice has arisen whereby those workers who work
Saturday and Sunday as part of their normal 40 hour week are
paid overtime for these days. The Court is asked to recommend
either that (a) consolidation should not apply or (b) that
consolidation should only reply as a direct trade off with the
elimination of the existing overtime anomaly.
5. On the call out allowance the Company has offered #17.50
plus appropriate overtime rate in addition to time off with
pay for rest purposes from normal start time equivalent to
hours worked on call out in the 8 hours preceding the normal
start time. This offer is part of a package and agreement on
all issues. The Court is asked to recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) Afternoon Tea-Break:
9. The Court recommends that consideration of this claim be
deferred until early 1989.
Claim (b) Consolidation of Shift Premium:
The Court recommends concession of this claim. In return the
Union should agree with the Company to examine jointly anomalies
arising in the payment system with a view to reaching an agreement
on their removal.
Claim (c) Call-Out Payment:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer on this claim be
accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_________________________
17th November, 1988. Chairman
M.D./J.C.