FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Breach of agreement in relation to breaks.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns female workers in the Salzle Acid Section. An agreement of 24th June, 1990 provides for a 30 minute unpaid break and a 15 minute paid break for all day employees. A supplementary memorandum of 7th September provides for an optional "afternoon" break of up to 15 minutes duration in specified conditions, subject to agreement between management and the employees directly concerned. Such an afternoon break applies to day workers in the Salzle Acid Section. A number of the Company's production workers in the Salzle Acid Section recently changed from day work to shift work in that area and are taking 3 x 15 minute breaks. The Company says that it is long established that shift employees receive 2 x 15 minute breaks. It, therefore, considers the taking of the third 15 minute break by the workers in the Salzle area to be in breach of established terms and conditions of employment for shift workers. It maintains that the taking of the additional break is interfering with production and contrary to agreements. The Union claims that the extra break was agreed for the particular workers concerned back in 1990 when they were employed on day work only. (The section was previously known as the "Female Section"). There was no agreement that the workers concerned would relinquish their afternoon tea break on changing to shift.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 25th August, 1999 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th February, 2000. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on the 22nd September, 2000,the earliest date suitable to the parties
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are entitled, under the terms of the agreement, to continue taking this agreed break whether they are on day work or shift work. While the agreement states an "afternoon" break the spirit of the agreement was a recognition by the Company of the necessity for a 15 minute personal needs break.
2. The Union does not accept that the taking of the break on shifts seriously disrupts production as claimed by the Company. No evidence has been produced by Management to substantiate its claim. The workers concerned continue to perform their work in an efficient productive manner while availing of their right to take a break as per the agreement.
3. The Union is willing to negotiate on the method of how the break is taken (currently it is taken as a group) if the Company ceases to insist that the workers are not entitled to take the break.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The taking of the unauthorised 15 minute break is a breach of established terms and conditions and is contrary to agreements. Clause 10 of the 1990 agreement refers specifically to day employees and refers specifically to this break being availed of in the"afternoon". Accordingly, it is particular to day workers and does not apply to workers on shift.
2. This unauthorised break directly and significantly impacts on the efficiency of continuous - operation machinery. Processing capacity lost as a result of a full-stop work break cannot be regained through increased performance, overtime or by any other such means.
3. Workers in this area are on a live incentive scheme. A relaxation allowance of 78 minutes is factored into this system. The Company allows two periods of 15 minutes of this allowance to be taken as full-stop breaks in accordance with agreements. The Company does not intend to reduce the amount of allowances to which these workers are entitled. The Company never agreed and does not agree that these workers may take any more (than the full-stop breaks currently provided for) of these allowances in the form of an additional full-stop work break. It is contrary to agreements and is not suited to the production requirements in the area concerned.
4. Only workers in the Salzle area are breaking agreements in taking this break. All other female workers Company wide on shift are abiding by the established terms and conditions of their employment and taking two periods of 15 minutes.
5. The Company is concerned that if ignored in the case of the Salzle Acid Section, claims for the taking of this unauthorised break could arise in other areas. This could have significant consequences for the Company's costs and competitiveness.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to the written and oral presentations of both sides.
The Court is of the view that the supplementary memorandum of 7th July, 1990, which introduced the optional afternoon break of up to fifteen minutes was agreed specifically for day workers and was not intended to extend to shift workers.
The Court is satisfied that there is a well established shift pattern of breaks and that the agreement of 6th January, 1992 validates an entitlement to take two "full stop" canteen breaks. The Court recommends that the workers involved in this claim should accept that the pattern is well established and that this does not include an entitlement to the unauthorised extra fifteen minute break.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5 October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.