FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CASTOLIN EUTECTIC IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Staggered breaks allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member currently employed by the Company on a "float operative contract". The Company is a leading global manufacturer and distributor of welding products and operates three principal manufacturing processes at its plant based in Citywest, Dublin. As well as employing fixed employees in each of its departments, the Company also employs "float" operatives who are, in line with business needs, required to move from one department to another. In two of the three manufacturing departments a staggered rest breaks system is in place. In order to achieve greater efficiencies, employees in these departments are required to stagger their rest breaks and are in receipt of a staggered break allowance in return for doing so. Float operatives who are required to work in either of these departments and who are requested to stagger their breaks whilst operating in that department, receive the staggered break allowance accordingly. It is the Union's contention that float operatives should receive the staggered break allowance continuously in return for making themselves available to provide cover for staggered breaks and not only while covering rest breaks. The Union further contends that an existing Company/Union Agreement outlines that all employees operating in a relevant department are entitled to a staggered break allowance for making themselves available to provide cover.
The Company rejects the Union's claim and agreement could not be reached at local level.The dispute was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th June, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th September, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a binding Company/Union Agreement that covers the issue of the staggered breaks allowance and it does not preclude any employee from receiving the allowance.
2. It is the Union's claim that once a floating operative makes themselves available to cover staggered breaks, they should be entitled to payment of the allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The staggered break allowance is paid to floating operatives when they are required to cover staggered breaks.
2. The Company asserts that the category of float operative is not covered in the existing Agreement and therefore has no entitlement to continuous payment of the staggered break allowance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Claimant in this case is employed on terms which provide for the payment of the staggered break allowance when his breaks are actually being staggered. The Union relies on a provision in an amendment to the Company/Union Agreement and is advancing the claim for payment of this allowance during periods when the Claimant is employed in the Powder Department, whether or not he is required to stagger his breaks.
The Court notes that the circumstances of the Claimant are substantially different from those of the workers who are in receipt of an on-going staggered breaks allowance. Unlike those who are in receipt of the allowance continuously, the Claimant is provided with opportunities to stagger his breaks but is not contractually obliged to do so. Furthermore, the Claimant is engaged as a "General Float Person" and as such is not in a category expressly covered by the Agreement relied upon.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th September 2011______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.