Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88914 Case Number: LCR12224 Section / Act: S67 Parties: COMER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Rest breaks.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, sees a distinction between fatigue allowance times during
production periods and the normal meal and rest breaks as provided
for in the Agreement. The Court, therefore, recommends that,
having regard to the relatively short duration of those
allowances, they should be taken as adjacent as practicable to the
work area. The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88914 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12224
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: COMER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rest breaks.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in textile manufacture in Castlecomer,
Co. Kilkenny. Clause 8 of the Company/Union agreement states:-
"The parties are agreed that each employee on week-end work
shall receive a total of ninety (90) minutes paid rest and
meal breaks on Saturday and seventy-five (75) minutes paid
rest and meal breaks on Sunday. The timing of these breaks
to be mutually agreed between the shift foreman and the
employees in consideration of production flow and personal
needs.
Canteen facilities will be available during break periods
only."
Work study reports dated 1981 and 1987 make provision for fatigue
allowance (i.e. a percentage of non productive time over and above
official break time). The Union contends that facilities have
always existed for the taking of short breaks outside the official
break time and within the fatigue allowance time and that the
Company is attempting to withdraw this agreed facility. On 22nd
April, 1988 management raised the matter of the use of the canteen
by employees outside their official break time. This was again
referred to in a letter to the Union dated 26th April, 1988
stating that disciplinary action would be taken if employees
continued to use the canteen outside official break times. The
Union contended that facilities should be available for workers to
take a short break away from their work station to have a
cigarette or a soft drink once they are within the fatigue
allowance time. No agreement was reached and the matter was added
to the agenda for a Labour Court conciliation conference already
arranged for 4th May, 1988. The matter was not resolved, however,
and was the subject of further local level talks. Again, no
agreement was reached and the dispute was referred, on 29th
November, 1988 to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing
took place on 15th December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the restoration of an agreed
facility, not the introduction of a new facility. Over the
years, space has been made available in various locations for
employees to take breaks away from the factory floor (details
supplied). Gradually such facilities were removed to make way
for new plant and machinery. The canteen then came to be used
on an informal basis. The Union objects to the withdrawal of
this agreed facility which is a condition of employment of the
workers concerned.
2. The provision of facilities for the taking of informal
breaks is a necessity in a textile factory due to the levels
of noise, heat, humidity and dust on the factory floor. This
is particularly true given that on the weekend shift workers
are required to work for sixteen hours at a time.
3. The existence of facilities for taking rest breaks will
have no effect on production. Each operator's output has been
measured in precise detail through work study analysis.
Fatigue allowance has been agreed. Should any worker exceed
his fatigue allowance this would be readily identifiable.
Bonus earnings (a measure of production) have not been
adversely effected by the existence of rest break facilities
in the past.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company/Union Agreement provides for sufficient and
generous rest and meal breaks for the employees. These
operate adequately for the three weekday shifts. The fatigue
allowances are not intended to provide for breaks away from
machines. This practice has gradually developed on the
weekend shift, possibly due to laxity of supervision. It is
not normal practice and the Company has acted to eliminate it.
This additional time away from machines causes production
related problems. There is increased down-time which leads to
insufficient usage of machines. Absence from the workplace
can also result in an increase in poor quality product passing
through unchecked.
2. The number of rest breaks and meal breaks compare
favourably with the arrangements in the textile sector and in
industry generally. Management has made it quite clear to
employees that unofficial rest or smoke breaks away from their
machines are not permitted.
3. In Appeal Decision No. 32/84 the Court recognised that
there is no onus on a Company to provide employees with time
off or facilities for smoking. This problem was raised and
centered around the provision of smoking facilities for
employees outside the normal rest and meal breaks.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, sees a distinction between fatigue allowance times during
production periods and the normal meal and rest breaks as provided
for in the Agreement. The Court, therefore, recommends that,
having regard to the relatively short duration of those
allowances, they should be taken as adjacent as practicable to the
work area. The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
23rd January, 1989 --------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman