Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94258 Case Number: LCR14514 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KLINGE PHARMA LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the elimination of the afternoon teabreak.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the question of the elimination of the
afternoon teabreak was an agreed subject for discussion under the
terms of implementation of Clause 3 of the PESP.
The Clause allows for the Company to take account of the need for
change and the contribution made by the employees to such change.
In this case the Court finds that the Company implemented the
terms of Clause 3 through negotiations on better scheduling of
breaks, improved holiday planning and it increased the morning
break on the assurance that discussions on ending the afternoon
break would continue.
The Court recognises the type of environment in the industry;
nevertheless given the duration of the afternoon work period and
the operation of flexitime arrangement, the Court does not
consider it unreasonable that the reduction of 5 minutes in the
total break time available as a consequence of the elimination of
the afternoon teabreak is unreasonable.
The Court therefore recommends the afternoon teabreak be
eliminated.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94258 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14514
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
KLINGE PHARMA LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the elimination of the afternoon teabreak.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1973 and it employs 100
workers in the production of bulk fine chemicals and
pharmaceuticals principally for its parent Company in
Germany. Up to November 1991, there was a teabreak
system of 10 minutes in the morning between 10am and
11am and 10 minutes in the afternoon between 3pm and
4pm.
2. As part of the negotiations on the implementation of a
3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (PESP), the Company
sought the elimination of the afternoon teabreak, better
scheduling of breaks and improved holiday planning. The
Company added an extra 5 minutes to the morning break
and paid the 3% in 2 phases. Despite ongoing
discussions, no agreement was reached on the elimination
of the afternoon teabreak
3. A further attempt by the Company to eliminate the
teabreak was made in response to a Union claim for VHI
cover for its members. The Company proposed the
implementation of 100% VHI cover in exchange for the
elimination of the afternoon break. The 50 minutes per
week would be credited to the workers flexi-time and if
there was a further reduction in the working week at
some stage those 50 minutes would be regarded as part of
same.
4. Negotiations were suspended due to trading difficulty
and a rationalisation programme was negotiated which
included redundancies, the clocking-in for management
personnel, the elimination of the afternoon break and
contracting out certain services. Agreement was reached
on all issues with the exception of the afternoon
teabreak.
5. The issue of the elimination of the afternoon teabreak
was the subject of a conciliation conference by the
Labour Relations Commission on 14th October, 1993. No
progress was possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court under section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990 on the 4th May, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company sells primarily to the German market and is
subject to two significant influences which have reduced
prices and eroded margins; cutbacks in the German health
system and new low-cost entrants from China and India.
The afternoon teabreak represents a disruption of
production leading to an unacceptable reduction in
productivity.
2. In view of the recent rationalisation programme, the
continuation of the break undermines the Company's
position in the marketplace and eventually its
viability.
3. The Company has shown itself to be willing to negotiate
the elimination of the break and to date the workers
have benefited from an extra 5 minutes added to the
morning break and a 3% increase in salary. In addition,
the Company is willing to provide additional VHI cover
but to date has received nothing in return. The Company
has an ongoing need to increase efficiency and the
elimination of the afternoon teabreak is essential.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has for some time sought the elimination of
the afternoon teabreak. The workers have consistently
rejected its approaches on the basis of the type of
industry and the need for the break. Although the
Company has always had the elimination of breaks as an
aspiration, the Union is amazed that it is seeking to
force the issue at this time in view of the co-operation
of the workers with the recent rationalisation plan.
2. The plant's working conditions make it necessary for the
workers to have an afternoon teabreak (details
supplied). The break does not affect productivity as
when a worker is at a break, the plant continues to
produce.
3. In conjunction with Clause 3 of the PESP, the Company
stated that future discussion on the elimination of the
break would be in the context of new working time and
improved conditions. This is not the case at present
and the production workers are aggrieved that the
Company is pursuing the issue following a severe
rationalisation plan. The Company's proposal would
unfairly affect the production workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that the question of the elimination of the
afternoon teabreak was an agreed subject for discussion under the
terms of implementation of Clause 3 of the PESP.
The Clause allows for the Company to take account of the need for
change and the contribution made by the employees to such change.
In this case the Court finds that the Company implemented the
terms of Clause 3 through negotiations on better scheduling of
breaks, improved holiday planning and it increased the morning
break on the assurance that discussions on ending the afternoon
break would continue.
The Court recognises the type of environment in the industry;
nevertheless given the duration of the afternoon work period and
the operation of flexitime arrangement, the Court does not
consider it unreasonable that the reduction of 5 minutes in the
total break time available as a consequence of the elimination of
the afternoon teabreak is unreasonable.
The Court therefore recommends the afternoon teabreak be
eliminated.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd July, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.