Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9310 Case Number: LCR14029 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FITZGERALDS BREAD LIMITED - and - BAKERY AND FOOD WORKER'S AMALGAMATED UNION |
39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. The Court given all of the circumstances of this case
considers the Company proposals in respect of the reduction of the
working hours should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9310 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14029
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FITZGERALDS BREAD LIMITED
and
BAKERY AND FOOD WORKER'S AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by the Company as bakers.
The Company which was formed in 1987 when Fitzgeralds Bakery
Limited went into receivership employs 65 people. All employees
signed a contract of employment which provided for a 40 hour
working week and paid breaks as follows:
After 2 hours - 20 minutes
After 5 hours - 30 minutes
After 7 hours - 20 minutes
In early 1991, discussions took place on the introduction of the
39 hour week provided for under the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.). The Company proposed an additional
paid break of 1 hour per week on the basis of 12 minutes per day.
The Company's offer was accepted by the majority of workers but
rejected by the 6 workers concerned. Local level discussions
failed to resolved the issue and the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference held on
12th March, 1992, was adjourned to allow the Union reconsider its
position. At a second conciliation conference held on 22nd
October, 1992, no progress was made and the matter was referred to
the Labour Court on 7th January, 1993. The Labour Court hearing
took place on 25th February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned commence work at 6 a.m. each morning
and the Union's claim for an early finish on one nominated day
of the week is not unreasonable under the circumstances.
2. Paid breaks do not interfere with production.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The concession of the Union's claim would have knock-on
effects which would cost the Company approximately #25,000 per
annum. The Company simply cannot afford such an increase.
2. The Company has honoured all wage increases to date under
the P.N.R. and Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.) at a time when the bakery industry is going through
a recession.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court given all of the circumstances of this case
considers the Company proposals in respect of the reduction of the
working hours should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________
14th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.