Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93552 Case Number: LCR14268 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CADBURY (IRELAND) PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning break-patterns which apply to production- workers.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that, given all the circumstances as described by
the parties in their oral and written submissions, the 1-in-4
relief-system should apply.
The Court considers, however, that it should not be outside the
capabilities of the parties to devise and agree a more acceptable
way to organise the break-pattern within the 1-in-4 relief
structure and recommends that the parties seek to agree such
arrangements.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93552 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14268
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 AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning break-patterns which apply to production-
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 1,000 production-workers in
its factory at Coolock, Dublin 5. Production-workers in C-Block
claim that the break-pattern in the "New Flake Rolls" area, which
was agreed as part of the 1993 "Programme for Internal Action'
(P.I.A.), is unworkable. The manning-level in the area is 5,
i.e. one worker on each of 4 Rolls and a fifth providing
relief-cover. The workers concerned have breaks of 80 minutes
each day. The Unions argue that, as 100% machine-attendance is
required by the Company, breaks have to begin too soon after the
commencement of shift and end too close to the end of the shift.
They claim that the problem is particularly acute on the
shorter Friday shift and are seeking the introduction of 1-in-3
relief in place of 1-in-4 relief. The Company's position is that
the break-pattern was agreed in the P.I.A. and, as there is no
spare manning in the Block, that no extra relief can be provided.
The Company states that 100% machine attendance is required to
ensure continuous quality production.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 23rd of July, 1993
at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 24th of September, 1993 in accordance with
section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 22nd of October, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Concession of the claim will not necessarily mean any
extra breaks for the workers concerned. The agreement which
has been reached between the Unions and the Company, on the
frequency and duration of breaks for all production workers,
will be honoured by the workers.
2. The Company's plan to operate a 1-in-4 relief means that
it takes a longer period of time for the workers concerned to
obtain their agreed breaks. For example, workers who start
work at 7.30 a.m. start their first break at 7.40 a.m. This
is in order to ensure that all five workers obtain their
agreed breaks. These workers also commence their lunch-break
at 11.05 a.m. Monday to Thursday, and at 10.35 a.m. on Friday
for the same reason. In addition, on Friday, the short
working-day, breaks commence five minutes after the shift
starts and finish five minutes before the shift ceases under
this new system. This is unreasonable and unnecessary.
3. It is all the more unreasonable as it is only the two-
shift and night-shift workers on the "New Rolls" in C-Block
who are required to operate on a 1-in-4 system. Day-workers
have a 1-in-2 system. Until the introduction of this new
system, two-shift and night-shift workers also had a 1-in-2
relief system. They would, however, be prepared to accept a
1-in-3 relief system, as applies for the majority of
production workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. What the Company is seeking is not unreasonable. All
that it requires is that the employees concerned should
comply with the terms of the Programme of Internal Action, in
particular the agreed 4-to-1 break arrangement and, in
general, the most fundamental provision of this agreement
which requires that workers be fully flexible and be
committed to the concept of ongoing change (details supplied
to the Court).
2. The agreement was accepted only recently by the total
production group and as it affects every area of the factory,
in terms of improved performances, to undo any part of the
agreement now would undermine the operation of the agreement.
When the 4-to-1 arrangement was agreed, a choice was given to
workers between meal-breaks of one 20-minute break plus one
30-minute break, or 2 x 25-minute breaks. The Company
suggested that a pattern of 2 x 25- minute breaks should
operate as this would give a more even spread of breaks
throughout the shift. The workers concerned chose to operate
the 20-minute plus 30-minute arrangement.
3. The Union declined the Company's offer to put in place a
7 a.m. shift start which would have alleviated any problems
arising on Fridays. As far as the Company is concerned the
4-to-1 arrangement has been operating successfully for the
past 18 months on the "Time-Out" plant in A-Block and there
is no good reason why it cannot operate in the "New Rolls"
area as well.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that, given all the circumstances as described by
the parties in their oral and written submissions, the 1-in-4
relief-system should apply.
The Court considers, however, that it should not be outside the
capabilities of the parties to devise and agree a more acceptable
way to organise the break-pattern within the 1-in-4 relief
structure and recommends that the parties seek to agree such
arrangements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th November, 1993 Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. ______________
Deputy Chaiman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.