Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93408 Case Number: LCR14171 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CADBURY IRELAND PLC. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the unions for a breakfast allowance for production workers on 6.30 a.m. start Tuesday to Friday each week.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submission from the parties, and noting the
terms of the 1976 Agreement and the history of the payment of
breakfast allowance the Court is of the view that it would not be
justified in recommending extension of payment of the allowance
for Tuesday to Friday as claimed.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93408 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14171
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CADBURY IRELAND PLC.
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the unions for a breakfast allowance for production
workers on 6.30 a.m. start Tuesday to Friday each week.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1976 The Company and Unions agreed a major site
rationalisation programme. Part of the agreement provided
for the abolition of the payment of special allowances.
2. In 1990, it came to light that a breakfast allowance was
been paid to operators in B Block who commenced employment
at 6.00 a.m. on Monday mornings and on the Tuesday following
a bank-holiday (the allowance is #1.80 per day). The payment
had been made by local arrangement. This allowance was
subsequently extended to other groups of workers who came in
at 6.00 a.m. In April, 1993 the allowance was extended to
craftworkers who commenced work at 6.30 a.m. or earlier on
Mondays and on a Tuesday following a bank-holiday. (details
supplied to the Court).
3. The unions lodged a claim on behalf of two production
workers who, on alternate weeks, commence work at 6.30 a.m.
Tuesday to Friday. The Company rejected the claim. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 21st June, 1993. As no
agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of the
parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 1st
July, 1993 for investigation and recommendation under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 29th July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Pre-production overtime on Monday mornings is generally
the only overtime available to production workers. This
rostered overtime carries the benefit of a breakfast
allowance.
2. It is Company policy that benefits should apply equally
to all groups on site.
3. The cost of conceding the claim is not excessive.
(#7.20 per week).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Workers on early start receive double time for all hours
worked before normal starting time. This more than adequately
compensates for any inconvenience involved.
2. The terms of the 1976 Agreement ruled out any special
allowances/payments.
3. When the Company discovered that a breakfast allowance
was being paid to some workers it attempted to eliminate it
as it is contrary to the 1976 Agreement.
4. The Company conceded the payment of the allowance to
other groups of workers in the interest of good industrial
relations and on the clear understanding that it was a
once-off arrangement without precedence (details supplied to
the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission from the parties, and noting the
terms of the 1976 Agreement and the history of the payment of
breakfast allowance the Court is of the view that it would not be
justified in recommending extension of payment of the allowance
for Tuesday to Friday as claimed.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th August, 1993 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.H. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.