Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90564 Case Number: LCR13110 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RICHVIEW BROWNE AND NOLAN - and - IRISH PRINT UNION;NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning the interpretation of an Agreement relating to cover for meal breaks.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, in the light of the submissions made, and
particularly, having regard to the practical operation of the 1981
agreement finds the Unions' arguments for cover for meals totally
unsustainable.
The Court therefore recommends that the workers concerned continue
with the practice of 9 years standing and operate the machines
concerned on a continuous basis. The Court further recommends
that they resume without further delay co-operation with the
Company to achieve the quality standard it is pursuing.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90564 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13110
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RICHVIEW BROWNE AND NOLAN
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINT FEDERATION
and
IRISH PRINT UNION
NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the interpretation of an Agreement relating
to cover for meal breaks.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns twenty six workers who are employed as
offset printers on Web Offset Printing machines. The crewing
level on each machine is three (one No. 1 printer and two No. 2
printers). In 1981 the Company experienced difficulties with
productivity and waste due to the requirement to stop machines
during meal breaks. In order to make the Company fully
competitive and printing continuous the Union and Company
negotiated an Agreement covering start ups, lunch breaks, run-ons
and shift arrangements within the Web Offset Department. In
return for operating the Agreement the workers concerned received
an ex-gratia payment of #50 and an ongoing payment of #14 per
week.
The Unions claim that the Agreement has not been maintained by the
Company specifically Clauses 4.1 and 4.2. The Unions claim that
the workers concerned are not getting cover on the machines during
breaks and as a result were required to remain on the machine
during breaks. The Union also claims that contracts of employment
were given to new workers coming into the machine room but no
reference was made to the #14 payment made to other workers or
that they would be replaced by suitably qualified employees to
allow them to move away from the machine for a meal break.
Management rejected the claims. The issue was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 15th August, 1990.
A conciliation conference was held on the 29th August, 1990 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 24th September, 1990. A Court hearing was held on
the 2nd November, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 4.1 (last paragraph) of the Agreement states "as
and when necessary, print supervision will be required to work
on the Web machines in order to jointly ensure continuous
production, in conjunction with Number Ones."
Clause 4.2 states "it is agreed that all personnel covered by
this Agreement will continue to work through all tea/lunch
breaks in conjunction with supervision, that is, that the Web
Offset machines will not stop because of tea or lunch breaks
being taken.
Clause 2 of the Agreement states "new employees who are going
to work in the Web Offset Department will receive appropriate
contracts of employment incorporating this Agreement."
2. The facts are that new employees did not receive
appropriate contracts of employment incorporating the
agreement. People therefore took up employment not aware that
there was an in-house agreement or certainly not aware of the
details of it. When the Agreement was first implemented,
overseers and others in the platemaking and sheet-fed areas
were used to provide cover while workers took their
meal-breaks away from the machines. This went on for some
time but appears to have fallen into disuse over the last few
years due to the fact that new employees were not informed by
Management of the relevant Agreement. Clause 4.2 clearly
shows that there is provision for supervisors to stand in on
the machines and this solution, as indeed the use of printers
from other areas would solve the problem.
3. The Union expect the Company to honour an Agreement
negotiated over a very lengthy period. Staff numbers have
increased substantially in recent years and there are long
periods of overtime. The workers concerned have become
frustrated because there is a lack of cover for meal breaks.
The Company intends installing a new press which will lead to
the employment of more printers which will further compound
the problem.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agreement has been in operation since 1981 without
interruption and had operated to everyone's satisfaction since
that time. The Company has been honouring both the spirit and
intent of the Agreement to the full. The Agreement has
brought not alone benefit to the Company but also benefit to
the workers concerned. Employment has increased from 110 to
130 with a further 20 workers currently being recruited. New
employees are made aware of the Company's continuous operation
and the situation vis a vis tea/meal breaks.
2. The workers concerned have adequate opportunity for breaks
and the Company adopts a reasonable approach to the taking of
breaks provided that machines are kept running. The reason
for continuous running is the high cost of the machinery
concerned and the desire to keep waste at the lowest possible
level. Start up waste on Web presses is very significant.
Competitors in the U.K. are running similar machines
continuously with a crew of one less than Richview Browne and
Nolan.
3. The Company believes that the existing arrangements for
the covering of breaks should be fully implemented and
considers that it is well within the capacity of the crews
concerned to cover for each other when breaks arise. The
Company rejects the claim that supervisors would cover for
workers while having breaks. While supervisors have always
had a "hands on" approach to the management of the Web area
they have not covered for breaks in practice and indeed it
would be inappropriate to have supervisors constantly tied up
covering for breaks and it was never intended that they
should.
4. Early in 1990 the Company announced its intention to
achieve the I.S.O. 9002 Quality Standard. This Quality
Standard is fast becoming an essential requirement for gaining
overseas business and the fact that the Company is pursuing
this standard was a major factor in securing a significant
contract with British Telecom.
5. It is essential to have Web presses operating continuously
and the Company could not consider reverting to practices
which existed prior to 1981 making the Company
non-competitive, losing business and ultimately losing in all
departments. For its part, the Company will, in consultation
with the Unions, examine ways in which the housekeeping
facilities for the taking of breaks might be improved.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, in the light of the submissions made, and
particularly, having regard to the practical operation of the 1981
agreement finds the Unions' arguments for cover for meals totally
unsustainable.
The Court therefore recommends that the workers concerned continue
with the practice of 9 years standing and operate the machines
concerned on a continuous basis. The Court further recommends
that they resume without further delay co-operation with the
Company to achieve the quality standard it is pursuing.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
7th December, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.