Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD86703
Case Number: LCR10850
Section / Act: S67
Parties: TEDCASTLE OIL PRODUCTS - and - ITGWU
|
Subject:
Introduction of a 40 hour week inclusive of meal breaks.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that shift work is not a feature of employment
in the Company as it is in other companies in the oil distribution
industry and does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD 86703 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10850
CC 86987 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10850
Parties: TEDCASTLE OIL PRODUCTS
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Introduction of a 40 hour week inclusive of meal breaks.
Background:
2. The Union on behalf of the workers, served a claim on the
company for a reduction in the weekly working hours for 33 members
of the Union in the Company's employment. The claim was served on
the 29th January, 1986, and the claim was that the present working
week of 40 hours exclusive of unpaid meal breaks, should be
changed to a 40 hour week inclusive of meal breaks. No agreement
was reached at local level, and on 5th June, 1986, the matter was
referred to the coniliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 1st October, 1986. No
agreement was reached at this conference and on 2nd October, 1986,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 24th October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) An anomaly clearly exists, insofar as workers in all
the other major oil companies who operate in direct
competition with T.O.P., work 37.50 hours for the basic
pay, while this Company expects its workers to continue
to operate a 40 hour week for the basic pay.
(ii) The workers concerned are involved in a wide range of
duties in the distribution of a very dangerous
substance. The need to recover from this work created
stress necessitates the need for adequate reaxation.
(iii) The Labour Court in Recommendation No. 5309 has
suggested that there should be parity of conditions in
the various Oil Companies. The Company has operated at
a distinct advantage over its major competitors for the
past eight years. It should now implement the 37.50 hour
week to bring it into line with the other companies.
(iv) It has not suited the Company to introduce shift work
heretofore. Recently recruited employees have however,
been told of the possibility of shift-work in the
future. The Company cannot therefore justify its
longer working week on the basis that there is no shift
worked in the Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Company does not work shift. It is therefore
unfair and unacceptable that the staff would seek the
application of the advantages of a shift system, namely
a 37.50 hour week, while at the same time retaining their
standard working week which obviously has its
attractions for them.
(b) The standard practice throughout the industry is that
employees who work a standard basic working week have
an unpaid meal break in the middle of the day, whereas
their counterparts who work shift arrangements have a
paid meal break during their shift. It should be noted
that all the statutory driving regulations and
standards which have been agreed with the Union are
based on the fact that a one hour meal break applies in
the Company.
(c) The nett effect of the Union claim if conceded would be
to add 6.25 to the Company's costs at a time when the
Company is facing increasing competition and difficulty
in holding its market share.
(d) It might be argued by the union that such a reduction
in working hours would not necessarily lead to a direct
increase in costs as identified above. The only
alternative available to a company which reduces its
working hours by 2.50 hours per man per week is that the
standard of service to the company customer must of
necessity reduce. There could not be a more
inopportune time for any suggestion of either an
increase in costs or a reduction in the service
provided by the company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that shift work is not a feature of employment
in the Company as it is in other companies in the oil distribution
industry and does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
3rd December, 1986 ----------------
P.F./U Chairman