FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAVAN MAC LELLAN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Walsh |
1. Payment for break.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is situated in Cootehill, Co. Cavan and employs a workforce of twenty-six. The present owners purchased the Company in 1993 following liquidation. Many employees were re-employed by the present ownership and some conditions of employment were carried over. The workers are contracted to work a 39 hour week which includes one paid ten minute morning break and one unpaid 30 minute lunch break.
In February, 1996 the production manager posted a notice specifying that lunch breaks should be of 20 minutes duration. Following discussions with shop stewards, management acknowledged that the correct duration should be 30 minutes and re-instated the 30 minute break. The Union claims that retrospective payment of 10 minutes per day is due to the workers since October, 1993, while management states that the reduced lunch break applied for only two weeks in February, 1996. The Company offered a payment of £50 per person which was rejected by the Union.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 28th August, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was then referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 27th January, 1997, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the previous management a lunch break of 20 minutes applied with a locally negotiated payment in lieu of an additional 10 minutes. As rates of pay are quite different to those applied by the previous employer the workers did not realise until 1995 that they were working 39 hours and 50 minutes per week, while being paid for 39 hours only.
2. The lunch break of 20 minutes has applied since October, 1993 and the Company has benefited from 50 minutes extra production per worker per week. The Company has effectively accepted liability for the claim which is on behalf of only 12 workers who are entitled to £581 each. The Company's offer of £50 each is inadequate in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Because of time-keeping abuse the Company sought to restore order to break times and mistakenly specified a 20 minute lunch break in February, 1996. The Company restored the lunch break to 30 minutes within two weeks when the error was identified.
2. There is no justification for a claim for two and a half years retrospection as the 30 minute lunch break has applied since October, 1993. It is impossible to believe that a strongly unionised workforce, with access to professional and active union representation, would not have enquired about an alleged 50 minutes extra worked each week for two and a half years.
RECOMMENDATION:
There is a conflict of evidence in relation to the discussions which took place after the posting of the notice of 15th February, 1996.
Again, there is no clear evidence in relation to whether the employees were working a 20 minute or a 30 minute lunch break.
Taking into account the above the Court recommends that the employees accept the Company offer in full and final settlement of this issue.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th February, 1997______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.