FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Collective Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that she did not receive the correct break period. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 10th May, 2013, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th August, 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hospital is unable to provide a copy of the 2001 agreement.
2. The Hospital treats the Worker differently than her other colleagues.
3.The Worker should get the same breaks as her other colleagues.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hospital has fully investigated the Worker's grievance.
2. The Worker receives the break entitlements as set out in her contract of employment.
3. The Worker's break entitlements are in full compliance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the provision of breaks is governed by a collective agreement between the Union representing catering staff and Hospital Management. That agreement distinguishes between staff employed prior to its conclusion in 2001 and those employed after that date.
While the agreement was not put in writing the terms agreed are not in doubt.
The breaks afforded to the Claimant are in line with the collective agreement and are appropriate to the date on which she commenced employment. In all the circumstances of this case the Court cannot recommend concessions of the Worker’s claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th September, 2013______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.