Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9099 Case Number: LCR12817 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation for loss of afternoon tea break.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given very careful consideration to the claim
made by the Union for compensation to those workers who because of
their liability to transfer to day work would or might some time
in the future lose the benefit of the break in question. It takes
the view that there might in certain circumstances be some merit
in such a claim but bearing in mind the current situation in the
firm, which involves the clear necessity for an immediate
improvement in efficiency to maintain competitiveness, the Court
is of the opinion that a claim of this nature is not sustainable
insofar as it puts an unwarranted price on the necessary change to
the employer, and is unfair to the workers directly involved in
the change by limiting the amount they might otherwise reasonably
claim.
The Court, therefore recommends that compensation be paid only to
those workers who are presently day workers and who will be
directly involved in the loss of the afternoon tea break. It
further recommends that the employer's offer of compensation be
amended to #150 and that this amount, payable only to the day
workers directly affected, be accepted in final settlement of the
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9099 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12817
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ATLANTIC MILLS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation for loss of afternoon tea
break.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is owned by one of the largest denim manufacturers
in Europe and has two manufacturing plants in Ireland i.e.
Tullamore and Longford. This dispute concerns the Tullamore
plant. In 1989 the Company proposed the introduction of a
rationalisation plan which was the subject of a Labour Court
Recommendation (L.C.R. No. 12546). The rationalisation plan
included proposed changes in the arrangement of afternoon tea
breaks for day workers. In the early days of the Company day
employees worked overtime until 6.00 p.m. and a ten minute paid
tea break was provided between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. Since then
the universal practice of remaining until 6.00 p.m. has ceased but
the tea break has remained. The end of the normal working day is
4.30 p.m. and the Company proposed that only day workers who are
remaining for overtime should take a tea break at 4.30 p.m. This
issue was referred to in L.C.R. No. 12546 as follows:-
" On the matter of the afternoon tea break the Court
recommends that the Company negotiate compensatory
terms for those who lose the benefit of the arrangement
which appears to have been customary in the plant."
The Union claims that compensation should be paid for real loss of
tea break for day workers and potential loss for shift workers.
The Company made an offer of #60 per head to those directly
affected by the change. No agreement was reached at local level
and the matter was referred on 30th January, 1990 to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A Conciliation
conference was held on 9th February, 1990 at which the Company
increased its offer to #75 for each day worker currently enjoying
entitlement to an afternoon tea break. Agreement was not reached
and the matter was referred on 15th February, 1990 to a full
hearing of the Labour Court which took place on 26th February,
1990. The Labour Court issued a recommendation by letter on 29th
March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under L.C.R. No. 12546 the Labour Court recommended that
the removal of entitlement to an afternoon tea break without
agreement or compensation is unacceptable. Such entitlement
is enjoyed by all the manual workers at the plant and its
removal has consequences both real and potential for all
hourly paid workers.
2. The Company has offered compensation to those day workers
who are currently exercising their entitlement to an afternoon
tea break. However, the Company has not taken cognisance of
the loss of entitlement suffered by shift workers who,
although not currently in receipt of an afternoon tea break,
have potential entitlement as they are subject to arbitrary
transfer from shift to day work. The shift workers should be
compensated for potential loss by way of a cash buy-out of
their entitlement or they should receive a guarantee that they
will receive the full compensation amount in the event of
future transfer.
3. The workers concerned have made significant sacrifices to
maintain and augment the Company's financial viability. The
Company's offer of #75 per head for day workers is totally
inadequate. The Union claims that #475 per head is reasonable
compensation for day workers and this cost will be more than
sufficiently reimbursed to the Company through savings of
fifty minutes per week per worker and savings on time lost in
movement to and from the canteen.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has accepted the Court's recommendation that
compensation be offered to those who lose the benefit of the
tea break. The only workers eligible for such an offer are
day workers who currently enjoy an afternoon tea break. The
Company sees no case for including categories not currently
enjoying the benefit of this break.
2. Any offer by the Company has to be seen in the context of
the rescue plan proposed last year. The Company has made a
large investment in the plant and is not in a position to make
major up-front payments for compensation. The Company's offer
of #75 to each day worker currently enjoying an afternoon tea
break is reasonable in view of the present financial
circumstances. Those who actually remain for overtime at the
end of the scheduled working day are still entitled to the tea
break.
3. The transfer of the tea break results in 50 minutes extra
per week on the workplace. This does not represent a loss of
earnings but merely the restoration of work agreed in the
original contract of employment.
4. 4. All offers by the Company are solely for those who
currently enjoy the afternoon tea break. For the Company to
offer compensation to a group which never enjoyed the tea
break would be unsustainable and potentially extremely
damaging as groups with no claim could also become involved in
this process.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given very careful consideration to the claim
made by the Union for compensation to those workers who because of
their liability to transfer to day work would or might some time
in the future lose the benefit of the break in question. It takes
the view that there might in certain circumstances be some merit
in such a claim but bearing in mind the current situation in the
firm, which involves the clear necessity for an immediate
improvement in efficiency to maintain competitiveness, the Court
is of the opinion that a claim of this nature is not sustainable
insofar as it puts an unwarranted price on the necessary change to
the employer, and is unfair to the workers directly involved in
the change by limiting the amount they might otherwise reasonably
claim.
The Court, therefore recommends that compensation be paid only to
those workers who are presently day workers and who will be
directly involved in the loss of the afternoon tea break. It
further recommends that the employer's offer of compensation be
amended to #150 and that this amount, payable only to the day
workers directly affected, be accepted in final settlement of the
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___30th___April,___1990. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman