FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Cessation of Meal Break.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Hospital and the Union concerning a tea break. The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 11th January 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th February 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1Post 2001 members have received the 11 am break in some cases for up to 14 years and it is their custom and practice.
2 The break is clearly acknowledged by the Hospital in its staff briefing notes on the 14th May 2015.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1Agreement was reached locally in December 2001 that staff employed post 2001 would not be entitled to this break but that the break would remain for those staff employed pre 2001.
2 Management have granted the break when requested on an ad-hoc basis out of compassion or empathy for staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute between the Hospital and the Union concerning a tea break. Hospital management stated that the break in question was discontinued as part of a collective agreement between the parties in 2001. The Union accepted that such an agreement was made in 2001, however, it submitted that a practice had emerged in the intervening time whereby this fifteen minute break became a regular feature. Therefore it contended that by custom and practice the Claimants were entitled to retain the break as part of their conditions of employment.
Management disputed the Union’s contention. It stated that the conditions of employment of all staff affected by the new break arrangements since 2001 had received details of their break entitlements in their contracts of employment and these details were outlined to all new employees as part of their induction programme.
Having considered the submissions of both parties and having examined the contracts of employment, the Court is satisfied that the disputed break does not form part of the Claimants’ conditions of employment and accordingly does not concede the Union’s claim. The Court notes the discretionary element exercised by management to allow ad hoc break arrangements on occasions and recommends that this discretion should be retained.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CO'R______________________
24 February, 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.