Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88974 Case Number: LCR12326 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 16 workers for the payment of a lunch allowance in the warehouse.
Recommendation:
6. The Court notes that prior to 1988, the majority of cases
where the Company used the "Ballyfermot Ramp" coincided with a
Company requirement for warehouse staff to work half of their
lunch period. This entitled staff to a lunch allowance and a half
hour overtime. The exception was 1986, when the ramp was used but
the lunch break remained intact.
The Union has interpreted this position as creating a practice
that lunch allowance and overtime is paid whenever the
"Ballyfermot Ramp" is in use. There is written evidence of the
payment terms which apply when lunch time working takes place, but
there is no specific evidence to indicate agreement that lunch
time working and the related payment should occur whenever the
'Ballyfermot ramp' is in use. The Company denies any such
agreement and claims that the 1986 working confirmed that there
was not an established practice of making the payment whenever the
second ramp was in use.
The views of the Company and Union are at variance on the issue
but in the absence of any recorded agreement the Court concludes
that the Company's view that they are entitled to determine the
particular hours which should be worked and that payment should be
per agreement for those hours is the more reasonable. The Court
accordingly does not uphold the Union's claim.
The Court notes that during local discussions on the matter a
compromise proposal based on a composite bonus arrangement was
made which did not gain acceptance at that time. The Court
recommends that this proposal should again be discussed in the
context of the discussions at present taking place.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88974 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12326
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CANTRELL AND COCHRANE (DUBLIN) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 16 workers for
the payment of a lunch allowance in the warehouse.
BACKGROUND:
2. In preparation for an early start each morning, trucks are
loaded when they return to the warehouse each evening. This
involves ongoing overtime from Monday to Friday. At peak periods
when additional deliveries are made, Saturday and sometimes Sunday
overtime is required to ensure trucks will be ready for the next
morning. Occasionally a second loading facility, known as the
'Ballyfermot ramp' is used. The Company, where exceptional
resources are needed, utilise half of the one hour lunch break
with a payment to the warehouse workers of a half hour overtime
and the payment of lunch money.
3. The Union claims that lunch money should be guaranteed for
workers using the "Ballyfermot ramp.' Normally it is only used at
Christmas but the Company had used it in July and September, 1988,
without implementing the agreed payments. The Union's shop
stewards on both occasions lodged objections. In November, 1988,
the Company indicated its intention to use the 'Ballyfermot ramp'
again. The Company rejected the Union's claim for guaranteed
lunch money during its use, stating that as in the past the need
to work during lunch might or might not arise. This was a
day-to-day management decision based on activity levels and would
only apply where overtime was worked during lunch. As agreement
could not be reached at local level, the dispute was referred on
23rd November, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held
on 19th December, 1988, and the matter was referred on 21st
December, 1988, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the matter on 23rd
February, 1989 - the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's case is a simple and straightforward one. The
Company removed, without negotiation or agreement, a payment
which had been in place for some years.
2. The 'Ballyfermot ramp' was operated in December, 1988,
when the Company utilised some of the warehouse operatives on
a flexible basis and drafted in extra staff to cope with
demand, thereby denying an extra payment which had been
enjoyed by this section for some years and for which they had
duly given the required flexibility.
3. It has been the attitude of this Company that effective
industrial relations requires commitment to observe negotiated
agreements. This commitment must be forthcoming from both
sides.
4. Arguments about costs or efficiencies have their rightful
place in local negotiations which the Company failed to
utilise.
5. Given that a review of the bonus scheme is taking place
any alteration or deletion of existing agreement/payments
could jeopardise a successful conclusion to these
negotiations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The amount and timing of overtime in the warehouse is
determined by management to meet fluctuating activity levels.
These activity levels vary from day-to-day and must be
assessed by management on a daily basis to determine the most
suitable work arrangements.
2. At peak times there is a very considerable amount of
overtime on offer to warehouse employees for a sustained
period of time. Most of the permanent warehouse personnel do
not avail of all the potential overtime available and the work
is taken up by other employees.
3. To-date the Company has not guaranteed lunch money during
the use of the second loading facility but has used it
occasionally as required.
4. The Company intends in the future to continue to operate
as heretofore. This does not involve any loss of potential
earnings to warehouse employees nor does it involve any change
to existing work practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court notes that prior to 1988, the majority of cases
where the Company used the "Ballyfermot Ramp" coincided with a
Company requirement for warehouse staff to work half of their
lunch period. This entitled staff to a lunch allowance and a half
hour overtime. The exception was 1986, when the ramp was used but
the lunch break remained intact.
The Union has interpreted this position as creating a practice
that lunch allowance and overtime is paid whenever the
"Ballyfermot Ramp" is in use. There is written evidence of the
payment terms which apply when lunch time working takes place, but
there is no specific evidence to indicate agreement that lunch
time working and the related payment should occur whenever the
'Ballyfermot ramp' is in use. The Company denies any such
agreement and claims that the 1986 working confirmed that there
was not an established practice of making the payment whenever the
second ramp was in use.
The views of the Company and Union are at variance on the issue
but in the absence of any recorded agreement the Court concludes
that the Company's view that they are entitled to determine the
particular hours which should be worked and that payment should be
per agreement for those hours is the more reasonable. The Court
accordingly does not uphold the Union's claim.
The Court notes that during local discussions on the matter a
compromise proposal based on a composite bonus arrangement was
made which did not gain acceptance at that time. The Court
recommends that this proposal should again be discussed in the
context of the discussions at present taking place.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
21st March, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.