Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89260 Case Number: LCR12449 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MODERN ALARMS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the provision of a dinner-break for night shift operatives.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the Union accept the Company offer for a
standard dinner-break on the night shift. The dinner-break to be
from midnight to 1a.m. for one operator and from 1a.m. to 2a.m.
for the second operator. The Union should also accept the
condition that the operators remain on the premises during the
break period. It is accepted by both parties that in critical
work situations the operators will be flexible in the taking of
the dinner-break so as to ensure the effective operation of the
system.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89260 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12449
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MODERN ALARMS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the provision of a dinner-break for night shift
operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the installation, maintenance and
monitoring of electronic security alarms. The claimants are
employed as central station controllers in the alarm monitoring
unit. Manning is carried out on a shift rotation as follows:-
week one - 7a.m. to 7p.m., Monday to Sunday
inclusive,
week two - rest week
week three - 7p.m. to 7a.m., Monday to Sunday
inclusive.
The day shift is manned by two controllers and a supervisor. The
controllers receive a one-hour paid dinner-break and are allowed
leave the control station at this time (Monday to Friday). Cover
is provided by the supervisor. However, they are not permitted to
leave the premises on a Saturday or Sunday, even though a
supervisor is again present. Two controllers work the night
shift with no supervisor in attendance. They have no designated
dinner-break and are not allowed to leave the control station. In
July, 1987, the Union submitted a claim for the provision of a
similar paid break for controllers working the night shift. The
claim was rejected by Management following several local level
meetings and on the 5th July, 1988, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference on the 24th October, 1988
(earliest date suitable to the parties) and on the 4th April,
1989, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the
13th June (earliest suitable date). At the Court hearing the
Company informed the Court that at a recent local level meeting it
had offered a dinner break between 12 midnight and 2 a.m. (one
operator between 12 and 1a.m. and the other between 1a.m. and
2 a.m.).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When working the day shift, the controllers receive a
one-hour paid lunch break and may leave the premises if they
so wish. However, when they work the night shift they do not
have a proper break and are unable to leave the station area.
2. To expect the claimants to operate a 12 hour shift with
a vague understanding that they can grab a quick cup of tea if
the occasion presents itself is to flout the statutory
entitlement of these workers.
3. The lack of a properly structured break can only have a
detrimental physical and mental effect on the claimants'
ability to concentrate and apply themselves during the course
of their shift. For workers in such a sensitive area as the
monitoring of security alarms being denied a proper break is a
most serious neglect on the Company's part.
4. Arrangements for paid breaks during 12 hour shifts are
well-established.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Some years back the central station managers allowed
operators on the day shift only, to leave the premises for the
duration of the dinner-break. This concession, which began as
an ad hoc arrangement, is now being used as the basis for the
Union's claim.
2. At present the day shift is manned by two operators plus
a supervisor Monday to Friday. The supervisor provides the
cover when either of the operators is at dinner. On Saturday
and Sunday the day operators are not allowed to leave the
premises despite cover being provided by Management.
3. The night shift is manned by two operators. Although
there is no provision for a designated dinner-break, the
operators on night shift are not prevented from having a
dinner break and are clearly aware of this. Furthermore, the
activity level at night does not justify the attendance of two
operators. Two are employed for security and insurance
reasons only.
4. 4. The Company is not averse to allowing night operators a
dinner break provided it embraces the needs of the business
and therefore respectfully requests the Court to recommend in
favour of the offer made at recent local level discussions
i.e. dinner-break for one operator between midnight and 1a.m.
and for the other between 1a.m. and 2 a.m. However, the
Company must stress that under no circumstances can it agree
to allowing the claimants to leave the premises at night while
on their dinner-break.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the Union accept the Company offer for a
standard dinner-break on the night shift. The dinner-break to be
from midnight to 1a.m. for one operator and from 1a.m. to 2a.m.
for the second operator. The Union should also accept the
condition that the operators remain on the premises during the
break period. It is accepted by both parties that in critical
work situations the operators will be flexible in the taking of
the dinner-break so as to ensure the effective operation of the
system.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
29th June, 1989 ----------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman