FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BERKELEY COURT HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR19857/04/DI, IR19858/04/DI, IR19859/04/DI, IR19860/04/DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is that the four workers concerned did not receive their paid breaks as per the Company /Union agreement. They did receive a one hour (2x30 minutes) unpaid break but not a 30-minute paid break as provided for in the agreement. The four employees worked in the kitchen on 9-hour shifts. The Union wrote to the Hotel in April, 2004, in relation to the issues of the breaks and seeking compensation. The Hotel's reply was that the workers were provided with both the time and facility to take their breaks. The Hotel had tried to introduce a system where employees signed for their breaks but could not get agreement to this. The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:-
"I find against the claimants as I believe that there are sufficient and long established IR procedures in place in the Company for this matter to have been raised and progressed by the claimants during their employment".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 21st of December, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of April, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The four workers were not aware of their entitlements as the 2x30 minute unpaid breaks was the standard arrangement in the kitchen. It was only when this was queried by another worker that the 30 minute paid break came to light.
2. The Company employee handbook states as follows in regard to rest breaks:
"15 minutes after 4 hours or
30 minutes in an 8 hour shift.
Note:
- The 15 minute break may form part of the 30 minute break
- Breaks given in excess of above mandatory periods are unpaid"
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In January, 2002, the Hotel tried to put in place a recording system for breaks whereby staff members would sign to confirm that they had received their proper break entitlements. This was resisted by the staff members.
2. The Hotel should not be asked to compensate for breaks where it had no evidence that these breaks were not taken by the four employees.
3. During the period of their employment the claimants did not raise any concern relating to their break entitlements. Had the issue been raised, the Hotel would have taken action if it was necessary.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court finds no reason to alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and so decides.
In the interest of Health and Safety, as well as good Industrial Relations, it is the view of the Court that it would be to their mutual benefit for the Company and Union to agree a procedure for the recording of breaks in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
4th May, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.