Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91108 Case Number: LCR13225 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CADBURY (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Unions for compensation for loss of earnings in respect of a work stoppage.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, given the circumstances of this case as described
by the parties in their oral and written submissions, finds no
grounds for concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91108 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13225
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CADBURY (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for compensation for loss of earnings in
respect of a work stoppage.
BACKGROUND:
2. On Monday 5th November, 1990 a worker employed on the 10.00
p.m. - 8.00 a.m. shift was instructed by Management to remove a
finger ring which he was wearing, in the interests of hygiene.
Efforts were made to remove the ring without success. The worker
was not allowed on the shop floor and as a result an unofficial
work stoppage occurred. A full resumption of work took place on
Wednesday 7th November, 1990. The Unions claimed payment for loss
of earnings on the grounds that the stoppage was caused by the
Company's breach of Company/Union agreements relating to
procedures. Management rejected the claim stating that the issue
concerned standards of hygiene and that every worker is covered by
Clause 13(d) of a Company/Union agreement relating to hygiene
which prohibits the wearing of jewellery, hairclips, pins, rings
etc which might contaminate the Company's goods. The issue could
not be resolved at local level negotiations and was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 28th November,
1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 25th January,
1991 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 28th January, 1991. A Court hearing was
held on the 27th February, 1991.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dispute did not arise from any intent by the Unions to
disregard the hygiene standards, rather it arose from a
Management decision to change how a worker was treated for
wearing a ring. Up to then workers had been given sufficient
time to remove such rings, and had been allowed to work with
the ring covered. In fact the worker concerned had previously
worked at his job with the ring covered. It could not be
construed as a deliberate breach of hygiene regulations as
every reasonable effort had been made (including a visit by
the worker to the factory surgery to be treated by the duty
nurse) on the night in question to remove the ring. Hygiene
standards could have been maintained without taking the worker
off the clock.
2. The Unions were refused a request to apply the agreed
grievance procedure which if applied would have prevented the
stoppage. This action is therefore in defence of the status
quo which was breached by the Company. The Company was fully
aware at the time of what the inevitable response to their
action would be if the Company took industrial action against
the worker concerned in contravention of the grievance
procedure.
3. A "Peace Agreement" (details supplied to the Court) set up
to prevent such situations has been invoked previously by the
Company. However, on this occasion, when the Unions requested
that the agreement be invoked the Company refused. The Company
should not be selective in honouring agreements.
4. The Company position of never paying for stoppages is
unfair in this instance. It is unfair that workers should
suffer loss of pay arising from this kind of action by the
Company. In fact the Court, in a similar claim in respect of
another group of workers in Cadbury's, recommended payment for
the stoppage (L.C.R. 12669 refers).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the time of the dispute a majority of production
employees came to work for all or some of the time in
question. For the Company to concede the Unions' claim would
mean in the first instance, paying employees who fully
supported the unofficial action. By doing this the Company
would be suggesting to the majority of its workers who came to
work for all or some of the time in question that they should
have fully supported this action.
2. The Company did not take the worker concerned off the
clock on the night in question. He was never taken off the
clock. He was told that he could not go on the floor. This
is no different to what happened on two earlier occasions when
he was not allowed on the floor until 10.50 p.m. and 12.30
a.m. and was paid.
3. Matters such as hygiene standards are not negotiable in
this or any other company in the food industry. These
standards are demanded by the customer and consumer and must
be adhered to rigidly if the Company is to survive.
4. The "Peace Agreement" which the Unions sought to invoke is
an industrial relations agreement. The Company was
instrumental in putting this agreement in place in 1984 and it
has worked very well to date. However, given that certain
fundamental requirements such as hygiene standards cannot be
matters for the normal industrial relations processes, the
"Peace Agreement" was not applicable in this instance. The
Company cannot vary its application of the required hygiene
standards.
5. The Unions claim that L.C.R. 12669 established a precedent
for payment in respect of time lost as a result of industrial
action. The circumstances of that case were totally different
in that the issue concerned the interpretation of a working
practice, clearly an industrial relations issue and the
industrial action was officially sanctioned by the Union
concerned (E.T.U.) and supported by all electricians.
6. There were no inconsistencies in the Company's approach to
hygiene standards. However to avoid any confusion in this
area, when normal working was resumed, it was agreed between
the Company and the Unions that by Monday 12th November,
everybody, including the worker concerned, must comply with
Clause 13(d) of the Rules and Conditions of Employment
relating to hygiene standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, given the circumstances of this case as described
by the parties in their oral and written submissions, finds no
grounds for concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
13th March, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.