FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-139283-ir-13/EOS.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that she is entitled to a 30 minute paid lunch break. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 27th March, 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I have concluded that the paid half hour lunch break is an implied term of the [Worker's] contract ... [and] recommend that the [Company] pay a compensatory lump sum that reflects the losses incurred by the [Worker] "
On the 7th May, 2014 the Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th September, 2014.
3. 1. The Worker's arrangements were unilaterally changed.
2. Several of her colleagues continue to enjoy this paid lunch break.
3.The Worker's previous arrangements should be restored.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is obliged to comply withS.I. 57/1998,Organisation of Working Time (Breaks at Work for Shop Employees) Regulations, 1998and the Worker's arrangements were discovered not to be compliant with this statutory instrument.
2. The Worker's arrangements were out of step with her colleagues at that grade across the Company.
3. The Company had no alternative but to amend the Worker's arrangements accordingly.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Company against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found in favour of the Claimant’s claim that she had an implied term in her contract of employment to a half an hour paid lunch break. He recommended its retention and accordingly concluded that the parties should enter into discussions with a view to agreeing a mutually satisfactory attendance pattern while providing for the retention of her paid break.
The Employer stated that it was compelled by virtue ofS.I. 57 of 1998,Organisation of Working Time (Breaks at Work for Shop Employees) Regulations, 1998to ensure that shop workers whose hours of work include the hours from 11.30 am to 2.30pm receive one hour’s lunch break and therefore had no alternative but to alter the Claimant’s working pattern.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court accepts the Company’s requirement to comply with S.I. 57 of 1998 and accordingly alter the Claimant’s working pattern, however, the Court is satisfied that she retains an arrangement whereby the half an hour’s paid lunch break is protected in her terms and conditions of employment by virtue of the letter dated 17thJuly 2003 from the Company to the Claimant setting this out. On that basis the Court rejects the Company’s appeal and uphold the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th October, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.