Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94281 Case Number: LCR14544 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of a breakfast allowance.
Recommendation:
In its consideration of the submissions by the parties to the
dispute the Court had regard to, the historical background to the
initial implementation of the breakfast allowance, and the basis
upon which it was extended over time to various groups.
The Court notes that insofar as one particular group was concerned
prolonged negotiations were required before agreement was reached
regarding payment of the allowance and that the basis for payment
within the eventual agreement differed somewhat from, and was more
beneficial to the recipients than the agreements as applied to
other groups.
The Court considered the claims as made by the Union. It also
considered the method by which the Company extended the latter
agreement to personnel outside the group involved in that latter
agreement and has come to the conclusion that the company, having
regard to all the circumstances surrounding the issue, had acted
reasonably in its approach to the matter.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claims
as made.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94281 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14544
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. Dispute concerning the payment of a breakfast allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1984, production workers in B Block of the Company
who started work at 6.00 a.m. on Mondays, were paid a
breakfast allowance. In 1990, when production workers
in Cocoa Block became aware of this, they submitted
their own claim for a breakfast allowance and
appropriate retrospective payments for those workers who
had similar early starts. On 14th May, 1990, the
Company introduced the breakfast allowance for
production workers in Cocoa Block and paid retrospection
of #55.
2. In July, 1990, a group of production workers in C Block
who had an early start of 6.30 a.m. on Mondays, sought
the breakfast allowance and retrospective payment. The
workers moved to a 6.00 a.m. start and the Company paid
them the breakfast allowance. In addition each of the
production workers received a lump sum payment of #55 to
cover retrospection. The Company offered the same terms
to the craft workers in Cocoa Block but this was
rejected. In December, 1992, the Company offered to
pay the craft workers in Cocoa Block a breakfast
allowance for a 6.30 a.m. start on Mondays plus a lump
sum payment of #55. This was rejected but in July, 1993
agreement was reached to apply the allowance for 6.30
a.m. Monday starts plus a once off lump sum payment of
#100.
3. The Company increased the #55 payment to #100 for those
production workers in Cocoa Block involved in the
original dispute and paid #100 to all other production
employees who were doing a 6.30 a.m. start prior to
July, 1990. Following these settlements a number of
claims were submitted on the Company by various sections
of the production group for the payment of #100. The
Company rejected these claims. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission and a number of
conciliation conferences were held the final one being
on 14th April, 1994. Agreement could not be reached and
the dispute was referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on 11th May, 1994. The
Court investigated the matter on 8th July, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers in B Block who had displayed goodwill by
providing an early start over the years but who had not
received a lump sum should be paid the #100.
2. Workers in Cocoa Block should be paid the #100 goodwill
lump sum as they had not previously received this once
off payment. This payment should be made to those who
were, had or might in the future be required to provide
an early Monday start.
3. The once off, goodwill lump sum of #100 paid to the
craft workers was a new agreement, not directly related
to the production agreement of 26th July, 1990, and as
such the #100 should also apply to them in full.
4. If a #100 lump sum was paid to craft workers in 1993 for
providing a 6.30 a.m. start, these terms should also
apply to production workers.
5. By introducing the #100 payment to craft workers and by
providing the allowance for 6.30 a.m. starts, the
Company introduced more favourable conditions for craft
workers. In accordance with the long standing agreement
these improved benefits should be passed on to
production workers who have a 6.30 a.m. or earlier start
on Mondays.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company rejects any allegation that it did not
honour its commitment to pass on improvements in general
conditions to all groups. The improvements of the May,
1993 craft agreement were passed on in full as
appropriate to the production group.
2. The craft agreement of May, 1993 represented a final
settlement of the two year old dispute with the craft
group about the original July 1990 agreement. The only
craft employees to have received a #100 payment under
this 1993 agreement were nominated employees in C Block
doing an early start prior to July, 1990. It was not
a new arrangement under which all craft employees on an
early start would receive a #100.
3. The Company does not accept that the improvements made
for the craft group in May 1993 undid the original July,
1990 arrangement with production workers.
4. Concession of this claim would totally reopen the
original industrial relations settlement and give rise
to further repercussive claims.
5. The current arrangement is the best possible one taking
account of all the circumstances and treats all groups
fairly and consistently.
RECOMMENDATION:
In its consideration of the submissions by the parties to the
dispute the Court had regard to, the historical background to the
initial implementation of the breakfast allowance, and the basis
upon which it was extended over time to various groups.
The Court notes that insofar as one particular group was concerned
prolonged negotiations were required before agreement was reached
regarding payment of the allowance and that the basis for payment
within the eventual agreement differed somewhat from, and was more
beneficial to the recipients than the agreements as applied to
other groups.
The Court considered the claims as made by the Union. It also
considered the method by which the Company extended the latter
agreement to personnel outside the group involved in that latter
agreement and has come to the conclusion that the company, having
regard to all the circumstances surrounding the issue, had acted
reasonably in its approach to the matter.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claims
as made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.