Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88969 Case Number: LCR12272 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FLEMING GMBH - and - IRISH TRANSP0RT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for provision of meal allowance on certain overtime.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that in the circumstances the
terms offered under the Union Company agreement are adequate and
no further allowance is warranted.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88969 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12272
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FLEMING GMBH
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSP0RT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for provision of meal allowance on certain overtime.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of diagnostic test
kits and employs approximately 110 people. In April, 1988 the
Company was about to embark upon the manufacture of a new product
and notified all employees in the affected area (production
department) that it may involve working late on Fridays for
several weeks. The first date on which the new product was to be
processed, was Friday the 1st July, 1988 and two weeks prior to
that date a number of employees (who are general operatives) were
requested to work overtime on Friday evenings for several weeks in
order to process the new product. The Company were unable to
indicate the duration of the overtime. The production workers
representative approached Management seeking the provision of a
hot meal or a meal allowance for the workers concerned. After
some discussion the request was refused, and the operatives
completed the overtime "under protest" for the evening. As no
progress was made in local discussions the dispute was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 8th July,
1988. A conciliation conference was held on the 10th August, 1988
but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 21st
December, 1988 (following further efforts at conciliation to
resolve the issue). A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick
on the 18th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management could not give an indication as to when the
work would finish, but stated that once it had started the
work would have to be completed. When the staff requested
that the Company supply a meal, at a time suitable to them,
the request was refused. The staff agreed to commence working
to complete the order although under protest, however, they
felt that the Company would appreciate their co-operation and
goodwill and agree to the modest request for a meal.
2. The employees concerned suffered a loss, as under normal
circumstances, their meal would be prepared for them at home
with their families. On occasions when this type of overtime
is necessary they would have to make arrangements for their
own individual meal, and this naturally would be an added
cost. The request for a meal would not create a precedent and
would only apply in such cases as this, when a specific time
for finishing the overtime could not be given.
3. Article 10 of the Company/Union Agreement states that "in
the event of emergency overtime reasonable facilities will be
allowed for employees to notify their families." This
condition is quite acceptable for normal overtime, because a
finishing time can been given. However, where it is not
possible for the Company to state the finishing time, the
Union firmly believes that the onus is on the Company to
supply a meal for the staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company gave prior notice to the employees, two weeks
before July 1st, and previous to this date Management
confirmed with each individual concerned that they were
prepared to work the overtime on the relevant date. It was
explained to them that it was not known how long it would take
to complete the production process, and therefore the duration
of the overtime could not be confirmed. It was pointed out to
the operatives that the Company expected the process to be
completed by 9 p.m. on that evening. However, due to the fact
that the process was new, the Company had to allow for
contingencies, and were seeking flexibility from the
workforce, who gave their co-operation. At the end of the
second week the Company had overcome any possible delays in
the production process and it was possible to complete the
process within normal working hours thereafter.
2. The situation which exists within the Company is that
there is a packaging department which frequently works
overtime. They have never received a meal allowance for so
doing, nor has there ever been a claim from that department
for a meal allowance. In the production department the
employees concerned had not previously worked overtime for a
considerable period of time. When this request was made the
Company therefore treated them in the same way as other
employees in other departments who had been working overtime.
The Company's policy in regard to breaks when working overtime
is as follows:
(i) More than two hours beyond normal finishing time - 15
minutes break.
(ii) Working until 9 p.m. - 30 minutes break.
On the evening in question the operatives received this paid
break of half an hour.
3. The Company could not accept the argument that the
overtime was unrostered, as discussions during the three
months proceeding the initial Friday clearly indicated that,
because the process was new, a finite finishing time could not
be given by Management. As had been hoped for, the process
was complete by 9 p.m. on the day in question and the
employees were able to go home at that time. On subsequent
Fridays the process was eventually mastered and completed
within normal working time. As the employees were paid for
their normal breaks in relation to overtime on the evening in
question, the Company do not believe, in the circumstances,
that they have a case to answer. The Company firmly believe
that the referral of this issue is superfluous as it remains
an issue which has yet to arise, and most certainly is
unlikely to arise in the future. As it happened there was
nothing out of the ordinary in terms of the overtime which was
worked on Friday, July 1st, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that in the circumstances the
terms offered under the Union Company agreement are adequate and
no further allowance is warranted.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
10th February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.