FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ORGANON IRELAND LIMITED. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation for smoke breaks.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of craft workers for an 8% pay increase plus an individual lump sum of £1,500 (1,904.61 Euro) in return for giving up 2 x 10 minutes smoke/refreshment breaks. There are approximately 25 workers involved.
The Union claims that the Company did a similar deal with 300 hourly-paid operatives (represented by MSF) in 2000, but did not extend the offer to the workers concerned. The operatives now have 3 breaks per day. The Company is adamant that there was never an agreement which gave the craft workers 5 daily breaks.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 14th of December, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th of February, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of October, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The craft workers have had the 2 x 10 minutes breaks for the last 11 years approximately, something which management acknowledged and accepted following talks in 1997/1998.
2. During the above talks, management made a commitment that any deal made to the operatives would also extend to the craft workers. When the operatives gave up their 2 breaks per day, it had the effect of reducing the machine availability to the craft workers by 1 hour 40 minutes per week. The extension of the same deal to the craft workers would help restore normality.
3. The elimination of the breaks would be closer to 30 minutes extra working time per day and, as such, a huge benefit to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The craft workers have never had an entitlement to 5 breaks per day. The 5-break agreement with the MSF employees goes back many years. It was eliminated last year and replaced with the new 3-break arrangement. The Company does not require any change from the workers concerned, so there is no reason to make a payment to them.
2. There is no agreement as the Unions claim that "whenever the production employees agreed to sell their smoke breaks we would also benefit the same". The craft workers have a 3-break agreement with the Company, the same as other employees.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and is in breach of the PPF. It is a knock-on claim which has arisen as a result of the deal reached with the MSF employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
While the arguments made before the Court dealt with the dispute in relation to the number of breaks the claimants are entitled to take, it is clear that the dispute is about relativity payment between the claimants and another group of employees.
The Union's position is that it wants the increase given to the other group of employees, the Company's position being that it does not require changes from the claimants as it did from the group given the productivity payment.
Given that the Company does not require change from the claimants, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
13th November, 2001______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.