Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89289 Case Number: AD8943 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AGRA MEAT PACKERS LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST 79/89 concerning the introduction by the Company of a smoking ban in designated areas of the plant.
Recommendation:
8. Having regard to the nature of the plant and its environment
the Court accepts that customer requirements are mandatory. The
Court therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89289 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4389
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: AGRA MEAT PACKERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST 79/89 concerning the introduction by the
Company of a smoking ban in designated areas of the plant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced slaughtering activities at Condonstown,
Watergrasshill, Cork in 1984 and processing activities in 1986.
In addition the Company has undertaken a substantial investment in
added value processing facilities in Cork which is involved in
test production presently, and will be fully operational in the
coming months. There are approximately 200 people employed at
present.
3. In December, 1987 the Company included a memo in the pay
packets of all its workers which prohibited smoking in all areas
of the plant except for the canteen and the cloakroom. Anybody
found smoking in the designated areas would be suspended without
pay, pending investigation, after which dismissal may follow.
4. The Union is objecting to the introduction of a complete
smoking ban in the yard area. There were a number of meetings
between the Company and the Union during the course of 1988 and
early 1989. At a meeting held on 19th January, 1989 the Company
put forward the following proposals:
"(a) Agreement not to treat the offence as gross misconduct
which may have resulted in dismissal but to treat it in a
less severe manner and go through the disciplinary
procedures.
(b) A five minute smoke break to be allowed each afternoon."
Following a rejection by the workers of these proposals after a
secret ballot they were withdrawn by the Company.
5. The matter was then referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. Following investigation the
Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation dated 13th
March, 1989:
"Recommendation
The Company has been attempting to introduce this ban since
4/12/87. It had previously understood that the new
Regulations had been accepted. In December, 1988 some
concessions were offered and were rejected by the workers.
In the circumstances that the Company must at all times
respond to customer comment and demands, I have no option but
to support its views on the matter. However I recommend that
in future, proper prior consultations take place, in advance
of the Company's decisions. It does seem anomalous that
workers cannot smoke in the open 150 yards from the plant and
yet other workers may smoke without let or hinderence, in the
offices in the plant and in the Cloak rooms and canteen.
However, I do accept the Company's argument in relation to
appearance and first impressions.
Finally I recommend that any breaches of the rules in the
yard area should be treated as misdemeanour under the
disciplinary procedure warranting a verbal warning in the
first instance. I recommend acceptance of the five minute
smoke break which is on offer."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal in Cork on 24th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The manner in which the Company sought to change Section
22 of the agreement was in breach of Section 1 and was
unacceptable.
2. Smoking in forbidden areas is considered gross misconduct
which could lead to dismissal for one offence.
3. The yard area as defined by the Company is from the car
park to the factory. While complex 1 is some 20 yards from
the car park, complex 2 is some 150 yards from the car park
and the area concerned is very substantial and is used by
members, particularly in good weather as a recreational area
during lunch breaks. Smokers cannot now take advantage of
this.
4. Members who work in the Lairage or on fork trucks or in
the maintenance workshop are now in a no smoking area.
Smoking should be allowed in the workshop.
5. While the Union welcomed the elements of the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation regarding prior consultation on
changes in the agreement and that smoking in the yard should
be considered as less than gross misconduct, the
Recommendation does not provide any compensation for those
employed in the yard area, maintenance area or complex 1 and
who do not have a formal agreement on a smoke break.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The decision to designate the yard as a non-smoking area
resulted from comments passed by buyers visiting the plant.
In addition to its present markets the Company is seeking to
sell its produce to the United States Forces. There are very
strict mandatory requirements laid down particularly in regard
to smoking (details supplied to the Court) before a Company
can become eligible to sell to the U.S. Forces.
2. The Court is asked to endorse the Company's position on
the issue of smoking as the Company is trying to maintain its
existing contracts and secure others.
DECISION:
8. Having regard to the nature of the plant and its environment
the Court accepts that customer requirements are mandatory. The
Court therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
9th June, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.